Note: I normally don’t publish anything related to the ideas of Nikolov and Zeller, for three reasons: 1) It’s just wrong, 2) It invariably descends into a shouting match. 3) These two guys published a paper under fake names to fool the peer-review process, which is a professional no-no.
But, here we are. I thought this was important to share. – Anthony
Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach (originally published at drroyspencer.com)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The non-greenhouse theory of Nikolov (and now Zeller-Nikolov) continues to live on, most recently in this article I’ve been asked about on social media.
In short, it is the theory that there really isn’t a so-called “greenhouse effect”, and that the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.
This is a popular alternative explanation that I am often asked about. Of course, if there is no “greenhouse effect”, we don’t have to worry about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and all of the global warmmongers can go home.
I have posted on this blog many times over the years all of the evidences I can think of to show there really is a greenhouse effect, but it is never enough to change the minds of those who have already convinced themselves that planetary surface temperatures are only a function of (1) absorbed sunlight and (2) atmospheric pressure, as Zeller and Nikolov claim.
I’ve always had the nagging suspicion there was a simpler proof that the Zeller-Nikolov theory was wrong, but I could never put my finger on it. My co-worker, Danny Braswell (a PhD computational physicist) and I have joked over the years that we tend to make problems too difficult… we’ve spent days working a problem when the simple solution was staring us in the face all along.
Enter citizen scientist Willis Eschenbach, a frequent contributor at Wattsupwiththat.com, who back in 2012 posted there a “proof” that Nikolov was wrong. The simplicity of the proof makes it powerful, indeed. I don’t know why I did not notice it at the time. My apologies to Willis.
Basically, the proof starts with the simplified case of the average planetary temperature without an atmosphere, which can be calculated using a single equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). Conceptually, in the absence of an atmosphere, sunlight will heat the surface and the temperature will rise until the rate of emitted infrared radiation from the surface to outer space equals the rate of absorbed solar energy. (To be accurate, one needs to take into account the fact the planet is rotating and spherical, the rate of heat conduction into the sub-surface, and you also need to know the planet’s albedo (solar reflectivity) and infrared emissivity).
The SB equation always results in a surface temperature that is too cold compared to surface temperatures when an atmosphere is present, and greenhouse theory is traditionally invoked to explain the difference.
Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.
In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.
This is a simple and elegant proof that radiation from the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface above the S-B value. This will be my first go-to argument from now on when asked about the no-greenhouse theory.
I like to give credit where credit is due, and Willis provided a valuable contribution here.
(For those who are not so scientifically inclined, I still like the use of a simple hand-held IR thermometer to demonstrate that the cold atmosphere can actually cause a warmer surface to become warmer still [and, no, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated]).
When real science wins, we all win.
Real science should rely more on observation and less on conjecture. Observation: I see four inches of snow sitting on a steel cylinder of oxygen welding gas out next to my shed. I also see four inches of snow on everything else. The oxygen gas pressure in the cylinder is 2000 psi (138 Bar, 13.8 MegaPascal, 141 Kg/sq/centimeter, whatever). Leads me to the hypothesis that compressed gas does not retain its heat after the compression process is complete.
Dan
Exactly. My thoughts drifted to the compressed air on the back of divers – I couldn’t say that those air bottles were warm for long after filling…
Playing the devil’s advocate here. Is that what the Zeller-Nikolov hypothesis maintains, or rather that greater atmospheric compression results in higher molecular collision rates (increasing temperature) when heat is being added?
Icisil, as I understand, yes. The heating of the atmosphere in the N-Z theory has nothing to do with compression heating, as happens when a bicycle tire is blown up. The theory is completely misread.
Think atmospheric density and then this will be more along the right path.
Also, consider that if you were lying on the ground and the pressure weren’t equalized, you’d feel 20 grand pianos on top of you. This isn’t trivial, and that fact is significant but I don’t think really understood.
Don132
I think this theory makes perfect sense considering the lapse rate into the stratosphere. Different preasure creates different heat. We can measure it, and it stays the same.
Global warming is a bizarre phenomenon. A great event to be sure. Herd suggestion at its peak. We are a dumb race. No matter how many incisive and accurate observations can be made here, the sheeple will continue to believe. Oceanic outgassing or a volcanic event spits all over this stupidity.
…what this money could be used for…
Collisions do not cause heat. They just transfer one type of energy into another type of energy.
Global warming is measured via temperature, not heat. Energy imparted to a volume of gas increases average molecular kinetic energy, which increases temperature. Higher pressure creates denser arrangement of molecules, which translates to higher average kinetic energy and higher temperature. Is this not correct?
No that only works in a closed system … FYI the Earth isn’t a closed system 🙂
Under your theory if you compress something like a cylinder of compressed air it not only gets initially hot (If an 80 cf tank is filled too quickly it will get hot to the touch) but stays hot .. every scuba diver is carrying this charming little burning ember on there back and have 3rd degree burns on the middle of their back???
See the problem the idea doesn’t even work on a scuba tank.
Isicil, no higher pressure does not increase the average kinetic energy. Each molecule/atom has exactly the same amount of energy as before.
Right, higher pressure doesn’t increase kinetic energy, but it does increase atmospheric density near the surface, which means more kinetic energy imparted to the atmosphere via UV absorption, surface conduction, and increased gas molecule collisions.
I’m certainly not arguing that this theory makes sense, but it does seem that I had a misunderstanding of what they were saying. The actual claim seems to be that gas density “amplifies” the solar heating of the atmosphere due to an unspecified effect of collisions. This is not quite the same thing as “compressional heating by the atmosphere”. But I do not see any description of a physical mechanism for that “amplification”. It does not make sense to me that more collisions could somehow increase the total kinetic energy of the atmosphere since each collision merely reallocates the total kinetic energy of the colliding molecules.
From the actual paper
If the apologists for this hypothesis can’t come up with a physical mechanism to explain the “amplification” effect, then I would say it should be dismissed as a curve fitting exercise.
Physical work in needed to compress a gas. It is this INPUT of energy, ie the work done in compressing the gas which gives it more energy and thus ( temporarily ) makes it warmer.
This energy comes either from whatever is driving a pump, or from the change in gravitational potential energy when a mass of gas changes in altitude.
That is correct Greg you sort of have to invoke the first law, the problem is it is really a lie to try and make classical physics not break. There are countless examples a classic example I gave below … try working out how a fridge magnet stays on a door or have a super magnet stuck on a roof beam and hang a large mass indefinitely.
Under classical physics you have to assert the magnet is not doing work it is just holding the object at a given potential energy (AKA not doing work). Normally the layman sees the obvious problem why can’t you just put an object in the air and it not fall then?
Done properly under QM Field theory it is much easier to explain 🙂
If you need a hint, get two random shaped metal objects and put them on a catapult and toss them watch the motion. Now take a magnet and attach the two objects to each other and use the catapult again. Notice something different about the centre of gravity.
So the hint is how does the magnet change the centre of gravity so the two objects act as one?
There is a lot more going on than just classical physics energy and force 🙂
“Global warming is measured via temperature”
Global warming isn’t measured, it’s calculated, inferred, and wrong.
Rich Davis,
“If the apologists for this hypothesis can’t come up with a physical mechanism to explain the “amplification” effect, then I would say it should be dismissed as a curve fitting exercise.”
The “amplification” effect is simply the density of an atmosphere.
Why is Mars cold if it has an atmosphere of mostly CO2? Because it’s farther from the sun and because the atmosphere is so thin. If the atmosphere were denser would it matter? Yes. If it has less CO2, would it matter? No.
Why is it colder the higher we go? Because the atmosphere is thinner. It is not because of radiative effects.
Are radiative effects including in the lapse rate? No. That should be a clue. What governs the lapse rate? Mostly pressure, which directly affects density.
The “curve fitting” is this: looking at all the factors involved in planetary temperatures and performing dimensional analysis to determine which factors play a role in temperature, it was found that the presence of greenhouse gases had no influence. Maybe people are overlooking this. Where is the universal formula for which you can plug in insolation, greenhouse gas content/action, etc., and come up with temperature, and have that apply to our solar system? It doesn’t exist. This is what NV found. What matters is atmospheric density and solar insolation. Did it fit a curve? Yes. That’s what we might expect if they actually found a universal formula.
The physical mechanism is simple. If you add a fixed amount of heat to a gas until the gas molecules warm to the temperature of the heat source (i.e., the kinetic energy of the molecules of gas match the kinetic energy of the heat source) then the temperature of the gas will depend on its density: the temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of a volume of gas. Fewer molecules (thinner atmosphere) means lower temperature, many more molecules mean higher temperature, all else equal. This is by definition.
This is why the thermosphere is cold, even though the molecules have high energy.
On earth all the denser gas molecules are near the surface; therefore most of the atmospheric heat is near the surface, without any help from greenhouse gases. The atmosphere retains some of the heat from the surface; the oceans retain more. Between the oceans and the density of the atmosphere, there is no need to invoke the radiative greenhouse effect, which is not the same as saying that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. It’s just that according to NZ and others, the radiative greenhouse effect doesn’t drive the surface temperature. Pressure, along with the sun, does.
That is my take on it.
Don132
Don,
Density is indeed the critical issue as I’ve been saying since 2007.
The reason being that greater density leads to more effective conduction.
That is why I say that the lapse rate slope is an indicator for increasing conduction relative to radiation as one descends deeper into the mass of an atmosphere.
It is no coincidence that the lapse rate slope precisely follows the decline in density with height.
The denser the atmosphere the more conduction and the higher the temperature rises above S-B.
Conduction is a slower energy transfer process than radiation so the more of it you have the longer will be delayed the exit of solar energy back to space.
Downward radiation does not significantly delay the release of energy back to space because it is near instantaneous and therefore cannot be the cause of surface warming above S-B.
here is a model of a sterling engine showing how the atmosphere heats the surface.
The sun drives the shaft (solar panels not shown) and provides the average temperature between the cylinders. The hot cylinder is the surface, the cold the upper troposphere.
The shaft rotates once every 24 hours. Hopefully the animated gif works.
Moreover, the near-surface atmosphere, in close contact with a surface warmed intensely by the sun, is far denser than the much colder upper atmosphere, and thus the bulk of the “average heat” in concentrated at the surface.
It has nothing to do with compressive heating and thinking that it does is messing everyone up. It has everything to do with near-surface atmospheric density, caused by … the weight of the atmosphere, caused by … the bulk of the atmosphere, and …. gravity.
Don132
Thanks Don. Gravity is excluded in nearly all discussions of greenhouse theory.
It’s dismissed because it isn’t relevant.
The lower atmospheric is more dense because it is compressed by the upper atmosphere. Isn’t it semantics? Last airline flight I was on it was -60F at altitude and +60 when I landed. A pressure/altitude table predicts this.
Farmer Ch E retired – “Last airline flight I was on it was -60F at altitude and +60 when I landed. A pressure/altitude table predicts this.”
Kindly reference that table. The last time I flew at -60F at altitude, the local landing temperature was -30F (as in minus thirty).
Chad – here’s the table for Atmospheric Pressure at Different Altitudes.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/c7/c7edaedb-95b2-438f-adfb-36de54f87b9e.pdf
In an adiabatic system, compressed gas is hotter (think diesel engine compression). The atmospheric temperature at altitude is going to vary depending on cold fronts, warm fronts, jet stream from the poles, etc. so this table is not going to predict temperature at altitude perfectly. The audience to WUWT is pretty diverse so I never know if I’m commenting to a university professor, text book author, activist, or interested person w/o a science background.
This is exactly what I’m seeing in this discussion. I don’t know why NZ talk about amplification, but the mass of the lower atmosphere seems to provide a sufficient explanation of retained heat. Noting that moist air is more “massive” than dry air, it is easy to see why desert air cools quickly at sundown, while humid air does not. And of course the greater air pressure at low altitude also represents the relatively greater mass of the denser air. This seems to be the crux of NZ’s paper, and I don’t know why adiabatic heating is even mentioned here.
Much of this discussion seems to overlook the ever-changing solar input due to the earth’s rotation. Fortunately for life on the planet, the atmosphere provides not only essential gases but also molecules that retain some of the sun’s daily input.
With due respect to Dr. Spencer, I think much of this discussion tends to “make problems too difficult”.
Don, at very high altitudes and extremely thin atmosphere the temperature is very high (while the “heat” is very low!). See “thermosphere” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
dwieland,
A couple comments on your post:
You refer to “retained heat”. Remember that “heat” is energy that is transferred and is not typically used in a noun form. Heat is something that flows.
Also, this comment is puzzling to me:
“Noting that moist air is more “massive” than dry air, it is easy to see why desert air cools quickly at sundown, while humid air does not.”
Water vapor has a very significant impact on how the atmosphere heats and cools, primarily due to the huge energy speed bumps that are encountered as water changes phases (solid to liquid, liquid to vapor, solid to vapor and all three of these in reverse). For your desert example, minimum nighttime temperature is controlled by the dew point (temperature at which the water vapor becomes saturated). To cool below this point requires crossing over one of the energy speed bumps – either it rains or it snows which incrementally lowers the dew point. A desert cools more at night because it is dry (low dew point) and there is minimal cloud cover to retain the nighttime heat.
You refer to “retained heat”. Remember that “heat” is energy that is transferred and is not typically used in a noun form.
Yet, you do just that:
A desert cools more at night because it is dry (low dew point) and there is minimal cloud cover to retain the nighttime heat.
To amend my “energy speed bump” analogy above, this is more than a speed bump, its almost like a wall. It’s like a jogger who runs the first part of a race on a dry track and then finishes the race running in 3 feet of water. The dry track represents cooling of the atmosphere and the water represents the extra energy required for the phase change (rain or snow).
thanks Leif – sometime we are creatures of habit to our own fault.
Plus 100.
With due respect to Dr. Spencer, I think much of this discussion tends to “make problems too difficult”.
The problem is that the table for Atmospheric Pressure at Different Altitudes is not for an atmosphere with lots and lots of water vapour in and a little bit of CO2.
NZ reference purely the pressure, not the atmospheric composition.
Their figures for an earth like planet will be out because a stock atmosphere without GHG will be at a lower temp than one with GHG. Not by a lot, But by enough for Roy and Anthony to distance themselves from the claim that GHG and by extension CO2 are not important.
The only way a planet of earth size pressure and albedo can have the same surface temp as planet earth is if they have used pressures including the effects of H2O and CO2 on said atmosphere.
In which case they should not diss the effects of CO2 and H20 which are important , real and scientifically alter the pressure and albedo significantly.
angech
Excellent comment.
angech,
NZ do not diss the effects of CO2 and H20. They say that pressure and insolation are much more important.
Don132
Good thinking Dan! The weight of a skyscraper resting on its foundation doesn’t heat the ground either.
Work, force times distance) is a form of energy and temperature is proportional to internal energy. Force alone is not energy, until it moves something. Imagine an Earth without an atmosphere far from any star. Then we allow air to fall from space to the surface to create an atmosphere. That air would certainly heat up. The force of gravity is doing work by moving air closer to the surface. Some PdV work will also be done. However, without the sun, that heat will soon be radiated away.
Frank, you will be interested to learn that we are dealing with different phases of matter, solid and gaseous, in your example. They act differently because of vastly different internal structure. Solids will heat and shift slightly under great force while gases do both vastly more easily. Just why is worth learning, I reckon.
It is however not doing N and Z justice to say something is wrong if the sun is required. Of course it is, for whtever theory, or the gases would be ice about 2m thick nevermind if CO2 was actually the miracle gas. No sun, no gas full stop in the real world.
Cold air sinks, warm air rises, that is work in the precise, physical definition, a heat engine in truth. In fact, forced compression is what ignites tender in a fire piston – an alternative to flint and steel or matches. The only debate seems to be where the bulk of the energy comes from and how much a biologically-critically important trace gas can influence things.
interesting analogy. I put 2 liters of water in a used soda bottle, set it outside and voila! It doesn’t rise and fall by several feet every day.
Whoa, you’re not addressing the obvious counter-example, that of dropping temperatures as you go to higher elevations, and hence lower pressures.
You got to look at the atmosphere as a system, the whole system has been heated by the Sun, and on average has a black-body-ish temperature, but gravity causes a temperature gradient, that at the surface is higher, but is compensated by the lower-than-blackbody temps much higher up.
Above 90,000 feet or so the atmosphere, while continuing to thin, becomes warmer: The thermosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
That statement whilst ‘theoretically’ correct, is rather misleading because there is all but no molecules of anything. This is not heat as we know it, eg., if you were to put your hand in it, it would not burn you.
Richard, “warmer” in my statement pertains to temperature, not how it feels to your hand. Temperature is not heat. This is why a discussion of global temperature is nearly meaningless as is exploration of the temperature of the air column. It has some use near the surface of the earth (within the troposphere in particular).
Dan, we do not say that. The energy input remains the sun of course. Not available to contained gas. Deeper understanding of Physics tells us, among other things, that energy fluxes always take the easiest route to increase entropy. Equipartition makes available the services of buoyancy for ground-heated gases, kinetically-thermalised molecules of all stripes and everywhere; and the massive power of water vapour. This can uplift five times more energy than needed here, being half the density of air and with specific heat capacity pretty near the top of any list for latent heat carriage.
Roy imagines his instrument is actually sensing and making sense of clear sky readings when they are outside the designed capacities of the receptor and the algorithm feeding the guage reader’s screen. Folk who helped develope these devices and with immense practical experience of the actual engineering involved, have shown this to those who seek the truth. Here in NZ at 35deg S latitude, summer, my device can read clearsky below zero C.
Reading Maxwell’s Theory of Heat from p330-350 would be a start. See Hockeyschtick for starters, and Tallblokes Blog. We have worked on this for many years now and understand that N and Z have many fellow scientists who have independently had to admit that the Ideal Gas Laws do not allow for unconfined (if constrained by gravity on their mass), atmospheres to be dominated by radiative transfer. Such a vector force is an effect of kinetic energy molecular vibration in the magnetic fields. It is relatively weak (-ve 4th power relationship), and its emissions happen so many orders of magnitude slower than KE collision transfer of energy that it hardly occurs. Indeed radiation is swamped by the instant expansion of energised gases – think gas-driven projectiles – followed by mass transfer uplift to where there is space for radiation to dominate. Say five to fifteen km for starters on Earth. Extrapolation of lapse rates tells the tale for those who wish to know….
Ditto for all measured solar system atmospheres thicker than 0.1bar. Gases are not surfaced, and steel greenhouses are irrelevant. I stand on the foundation built by Maxwell, and the null hypothesis remains intact. Understanding why the Gas Laws rule does take work on how gases are not the same in their nature, which is what’Physics’ means, as solids’ I repeat, ‘God’s Empiricism’ demonstrates what we say in the Solar System and all the various measurements of a wild assortment of atmospheric gases. They do act in concert, affected only by solar distance and atmospheric mass. All else follows. Brett
Right on , Brett!
Many people are having “black dog” moments.
Some might recall a comment made in another post where I stated that I thought I saw a black dog in my driveway, even a half day after I found out that I’d been burgled, when what I’d actually seen was the burglar jumping from the window.
Sometimes we see what we expect to see or are conditioned to see or want to see.
In order to believe that NZ are wrong you’d have to believe that a gas with “x” number of molecules would have the same temperature as a gas with “10x” molecules, when both are up against a heated surface that remains constantly heated, such as the surface of the earth during the daytime.
If NZ are wrong, then the implication is that it wouldn’t matter if surface pressure were 7 psi instead of 14.7 psi, and it wouldn’t matter if the surface pressure were 29 psi.
Once again, it’s not about compressive heating, which is the “black dog” story we’re telling ourselves.
Don132
The various proposals for terraforming Mars rely not upon increasing the radiative GHG effect, by increasing the number of molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere, but rather upon adding mass to the Martian atmosphere thereby increasing the pressure of the atmosphere.
“Leads me to the hypothesis that compressed gas does not retain its heat after the compression process is complete.”
Certainly but the oxy welding gas cylinder is in an atmospheric environment where things come to an equilibrium temperature – typically ambient air temperature.
However an atmosphere is in an environment where the only means of exchange is radiation to space and this is entirely a different situation.
NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheets show that the outer solar system planets ALL have temperatures at 1 bar pressure that exceed their calculated blackbody temperature and exceed the temperature at 0.1 bar.
This characteristic is present in every planetor moon with an atmosphere. And using NASA’s data the temperatures can be calculated by the ideal gas laws.
Also all of the outer planets have extremely high core temperatures deep in their atmospheres with Uranus the lowest at ~4700°C.
None of that comes from the solar radiation and these have significantly lower traces- almost none – of GHG’s than Earth.
Some say this is the remnant “heat of formation” but that explanation is strange because, if it isn’t gravitational compression of gases responsible for the temperature, then where did the “heat of formation” originate ?
The outer planets also must have a gravitational core compressing the gases of their atmospheres because everything we know about gases indicates a “self compressing gas” is virtually impossible. We know the nature of a gas is to occupy any available space and therefore the accretion of free gases in a vacuum to form a self compressing mass is impossible.
Any discussion should consider these facts as listed by NASA.
I am for from convinced that that analogy is informative, since the gaseous system inside the gas bottle is stable and in equilibrium, which is not the position with Earth’s atmosphere.
Our atmosphere is constantly dynamic with air currents rising (via convection) and then falling. Further, the atmosphere is constantly being pulled/displaced by gravitational forces exerted by the sun and the moon, and the movement of tides etc, which gives rise to the atmospheric bulge. Hence work is constantly being performed in Earth’s atmosphere and the by product of this work may be sufficient to maintain temperature.
It is well known in motor racing that tyre temperature is a factor of work done by the tyre. The slight bulging/flexing of the tyre wall causes heat to be generated or maintained. Thus on racing cars, tyres are fitted out of a warm blanket, and if the car is idle or run slowly for any extended period the tyre temperature cools, but it does not cool if the car is driven at race speeds, just because of the small amount of work being inputted into the tyre.
The planet;s system is complex and a comparison with a simple analogy may not be appropriate.
Willis
If you took the sun out of the picture the planet would still be warmer with an atmosphere (whether it is composed of nitrogen or any other atmospheric gas ) than without an atmosphere. Adiabatic heating does not add energy nor enthalpy to a system, but it does increase temperature when the volume decreases; or correspondingly decreases temperature when the volume increases. Of course there is always some heat lost to surroundings.
Earth’s atmosphere acts like a pump which is moved by gravitational pressure which itself is influenced by the surrounding planets and sun. Even earth’s moon changes the gravitational pull of the earth. We may not understand gravity but we see its effects. It is this pumping action that gives the earth a basic temperature above what the moon has. There is no new energy source, thus no new energy to upset the energy balance. Adiabatic magnetization or demagnetization also has an effect on temperature. There is confusion between the definition of adiabatic in classical and quantum mechanics when referring to the speed of the process.
Heat Transfer, along with Thermodynamics, mass transfer, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics are engineering subjects of which very few scientists understand even a little of anyone of these subjects.
If one looks at the original work of Stefan and Boltzmann it will be found that the S-B equation applies to surfaces (not gases) in a vacuum. Boltzmann wrote a proof for the second law of thermodynamics (or more correctly the 4th postulate of thermodynamics) in terms of entropy which is defined in the 3rd postulate of Thermodynamics. Baron Fourier found that a clear atmosphere (ie no clouds) acts somewhat like a vacuum with respect to infrared radiation.
N & Z’s propostion revolves around the 5th postulate which Willis and Spencer likely have ignored or do not understand.
Dimensional Analysis which N & Z say in their publication few scientists are aware of and do not understand has been an engineering subject since around 1900. Dimensional analysis is used in heat and transfer giving dimensional numbers such as the Nusselt No. (convection) Grashof number (evaporation) Schmidt No (mass transfer) and in Fluid dynamics ( Reynolds No.)
N&Z used dimensional analysis to find their relationship. They tried 12 dimensional relationships and found one which gave the least error based on measured values for different rocky planets (ie have a surface and an atmosphere-Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton). Their theory can be checked when more data is available for other moons and planets in the solar system .
I respect most of the work of Dr Spencer, he did reply to an email from me honestly saying he did not know the answer to my question (about methane) as he had no knowledge of organic chemistry.
I caught Willis out with a reference to a b*llSh*t paper you can see my response on my website (very little used) http://www.cementafriend.wordpress.com
Bad typing and editing meant to say dimensionless numbers -note Dr Gavin Schmidt did not know about the Schmidt number until he looked it up on Wiki and in a comment (on the website of an engineer in a post concerning a proposition by a Russian scientist about cyclones & tornados) admitted he did not know how the Schmidt number was used. Dr Schmidt certainly has no idea about dimensional analysis. It appears that most commentators here also do not understand.
cementafriend, you may understand dimensional analysis but you don’t seem to understand overfitting. Read The Mystery of Equation 8. I discuss overfitting there. In it, you’ll note that I developed an even simpler formula than that of N&Z that gives better answers than they got.
From that post:
Four free parameters and free choice of equation to fit eight points? That’s a scientific joke. It would only be surprising if they could NOT get a good result with those conditions, and as I said, I got an even better result.
Best of New Years to you,
w.
PS—I followed your link to what you claim was when you “caught me out” but I couldn’t find anything about what you claimed. A link to your entire blog is less than useful …
Willis it seems you did not try very hard about the comment here is a link https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/#comments
to help you here is part of my comment
“Willis, nice to have a response from you. It is strange that with the paper, by Kasting et al 1983, you refer to that your BS indicator was not working.
Please note the first sentence of the abstract “A detailed model is presented of methane photochemistry in the primitive terrestrial atmosphere along with speculation about its interpretation” – model, primitive terrestrial atmosphere, speculation and interpretation.
The article refers to modelled anaerobic conditions ie no oxygen present. The present conditions in the atmosphere are completely different.”
I enjoy many of your articles but not this about the N&Z article which you may not have read in detail. I know plenty about curve fitting which is what all the so-called climate models do with temperature. Dimensional analysis is different especially when it looks at a range of measured parameters (with dimensions). The N&Z analysis may not be complete, there maybe better factors but at least it provides an equation which can be tested when data for other moons of Saturn and Jupiter is available.
By the way if you have not guessed I am registered professional chemical engineer with considerable experience in heat transfer, combustion and process instrumentation and control. I also have a post graduate degree in business and understand the financial of the implications of the wasted efforts with so-called renewables.
Willis looked at your article. You make no mention of N & Z making dimensional analysis and looking at 12 sets of parameters and measured data from NASA and other country rockets (eg Russian for Venus). In their paper they did not include Europa because there was insufficient data particularly about its atmosphere and surface pressure. They did not include Mercury. I understand that only recently NASA has sent a rocket (space vehicle) to obtain data on surface temperature and atmosphere (if any) When accurate data for Mercury and Europa is available it should show if N&Z analysis applies to these rocky small sized planets.
cementafriend January 1, 2019 at 4:18 am
cementafriend, it’s not my job to root through your junk to find something. If you want me to read whatever you wrote, that’s your job.
Having just read it now, I haven’t the slightest idea why you brought it up. Near as I can tell it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
Pass.
You also say:
I couldn’t care less if they got there by way of dimensional analysis or ouija boards. All that matters is their final product. It contains 5 tunable parameters plus free choice of equations to fit eight data points. I said in the paper that it would only be surprising if they could NOT fit eight data points given those conditions.
Then I developed a better fit using less parameters.
Then I developed another equally good fit using one less variable.
And NONE of these equations, mine or theirs, mean a damn thing. They are all just the result of overfitting.
If at this point you don’t understand that we are dealing with meaningless curve fitting, then I encourage you to direct your comments elsewhere. If your understanding of overfitting is that poor there is no point in further discussion.
Have a wonderful New Year,
w.
Let’s not forget Ned Nikolov’s direct reply to Willis’ “The Mystery of Equation 8”:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/comment-page-2/#comment-15281
I suppose he could have been more kind, but brutal honesty is something we all have to face at some time or another — I remember the time I was training in summer sessions of a professional arts school. Talk about brutal honesty !
Nikolov was brutal, but far from honest. If he had been he’d have noted that he used the less accurate of my two replacements for his curve fitting, rather than the one that has only three quarters of the RMS error of his curve fitting.
And if he were honest he wouldn’t have used a bogus temperature for Mars (180K) simply because it fit his curve to within 0.1°C. Instead, he would honestly have used the real Mars temperature of 201K, which gives a 30°C error …
w.
Willis,
I seem to be finding some wiggle room on mean temp of Mars. Does anybody really know what it is within the range being discussed?
Also, how do you answer Nikolov’s claim about your “confusion” over some of the values in his equations and how you characterize them as categories of measure that they are not? Specifically, the following are a couple of quotes in his critique of your critique of him:
He had a laundry list of five, I think. It would have been cool to see your exact responses to these over at tallbloke, but I’m gathering that maybe you and the tall one had some friction to hinder this.
Robert Kernodle January 4, 2019 at 12:42 pm
His claim of a Mars temperature of 180K is a long, long ways outside the “range being discussed”.
Side issue, unrelated to my two main points.
It is indeed a “tunable parameter”, it has no physical basis.
Tallbloke banned me from his site. I’ve asked him to lift the ban. He has refused. Which, no doubt, is why Nikolov posted his reply there.
To reiterate my two points:
1. Whether there are four tunable parameters or five plus a freely chosen non-physically based equation, he is only fitting eight data points, so it is wildly overfitted.
2. As my proof shows, the details of his claim are immaterial. if there are no GHGs in the atmosphere, it is physically impossible for any atmospheric-based (pressure, density, gravity, etc) processes to raise the surface temperature higher than the blackbody S-B temperature. Doing so means that the surface is radiating more than it receives, which is physically impossible.
Not only did he not falsify either of those points, he didn’t touch them at all. Instead he focused on a host of meaningless side issues like whether there are four or five tunable parameters …
w.
Willis:
“If there are no GHGs in the atmosphere, it is physically impossible for any atmospheric-based (pressure, density, gravity, etc) processes to raise the surface temperature higher than the blackbody S-B temperature. Doing so means that the surface is radiating more than it receives, which is physically impossible.”
Because … if the atmosphere is warmed, then that means that some of that warmth is necessarily transmitted to the surface, and if so, then that means that the surface is transmitting more energy than it receives! Got it! Thank you.
Now, please explain to us why an atmosphere that is heated by GHGs does not also transmit some of that energy to the surface, thereby causing the surface to radiate more than it receives. Divine heating?
The logic of the GHG warming position is impossible when set up against the atmospheric thermal effect. It’s an arbitrary logic that’s designed to support a position that gets weaker and weaker the more one examines it.
Don132
@Don
“explain to us why an atmosphere that is heated by GHGs does not also transmit some of that energy to the surface, thereby causing the surface to radiate more than it receives”
In a way this occurs. The atmosphere receives ~78 w/m^2 directly from solar radiation. It radiates ~333 w/m^2 to the surface and ~199 w/m^2 to space.
The surface receives ~161 w/m^2 of direct solar radiation. It radiates ~40 w/m^2 to space and ~356 w/m^2 to the atmosphere. It also moves ~97 w/m^2 to the atmosphere by evaporation (latent heat) and conduction/convection.
Confused? Most of this energy transfer occurs in a loop between surface and atmosphere and back again. It plays no direct role in net energy received or lost by the Earth. This energy loop is also what drives things like convection and thermals, which also play no direct role in Earth’s energy gain or loss.
Donb says of GHGs:
“Most of this energy transfer occurs in a loop between surface and atmosphere and back again. It plays no direct role in net energy received or lost by the Earth. This energy loop is also what drives things like convection and thermals, which also play no direct role in Earth’s energy gain or loss.”
Sounds a lot like the loop Stephen was describing.
In fact the theoretical mechanisms differ but the fact that the atmosphere is warmed by GHGs or by absorbed kinetic energy makes no difference to energy in/energy out. The only difference is that you arbitrarily say that one will cause more energy to be emitted than received.
Don132
Thanks for the reply, Willis.
I’m trying to wade through all this with my less-than-perfect [understatement] understanding of the math.
In one of your earlier comments, you wrote:
I’m thinking that there might be a better characterization of his (their) choice for Mars temperature than your implication of dishonesty. I took a quick look at this:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
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.s
… where the authors explain their choice of Mars temperature as follows:
“We found that quoted values for the mean global temperature and surface atmospheric pressure of Mars were either improbable or too uncertain to be useful to our analysis. Thus, studies published in the last 15 years report Mars’ GMAT being anywhere between 200 K and 240 K with the most frequently quoted values in the range 210–220 K [6,32,76-81]. However, in-situ measurements by Viking Lander 1 suggest that the average surface air temperature at a low-elevation site in the Martian subtropics does not exceed 207 K during the summerfall season (Appendix B). Therefore, the Red Planet’s GMAT must be lower than 207 K. The Viking records also indicate that average diurnal temperatures above 210 K can only occur on Mars during summertime. Hence, all such values must be significantly higher than the actual mean annual temperature at any Martian latitude. This is also supported by results from a 3-D global circulation model of the Red Planet obtained by Fenton et al. [82]. The surface atmospheric pressure on Mars varies appreciably with season and location. Its global average value has previously been reported between 600 Pa and 700 Pa [6,32,78,80,83,84], a range that was too broad for the target precision of our study. Hence our decision to calculate new annual global means of near-surface temperature and air pressure for Mars via a thorough analysis of available data from remote-sensing and in-situ observations. Appendix B details our computational procedure with the results presented in Table 2. It is noteworthy that our independent estimate of Mars’ GMAT (190.56 ± 0.7 K), while significantly lower than values quoted in recent years, is in perfect agreement with spherically integrated brightness temperatures of the Red Planet derived from remote microwave measurements in the late 1960s and early 1970s [85-87].”
Their reasons seem well thought out along a very structured line of argument, and I would not characterize this as dishonest.
I don’t have the command of the math to be a technical ref for you and Nikolov’s exchanges, but his ability to answer each of your objections indicates to me that he has a command for what he is doing.
What I find, in these sorts of higher level intellectual kung fu matches, is that inevitably one side claims that the other side does not understand some basic, while the other side claims the same of its respective other. It’s frustrating to be such a novice that I cannot declare a true winner of these debates. What I see, however, is that N&Z seem to be holding their own, despite your efforts to find something wrong with their ideas.
I, thus, cannot yet discount their approach to explaining Earth’s near-surface warmth via their alternative explanation, which seems consistent with banishing the insanity over the Satan molecule (CO2).
I have seen technical arguments against the “radiative greenhouse effect” that equal or surpass the rigor of your technical arguments against N&Z. Both approaches seem to have their proponents and detractors.
Robert Kernodle January 4, 2019 at 6:23 pm
Robert, every modern reference I can find puts the average temperature at ~210K—220K. I find nobody who puts it below 200K.
However, Nikolov used the value of 180K.
Now, you are free to believe that it is just a fortunate cosmic coincidence that 180K is within 0.1°C of the value predicted by Nikolov’s miracle equation.
Me … not so much …
w.
Here’s the reason why Mr. Eschenbach is right that almost all of those arguments are irrelevant: there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.
There are three components: the earth, its atmosphere, and space. If the atmosphere were completely non-radiative, then heat flow to and from the atmosphere could occur only by conduction, and that conduction would occur only between the atmosphere and the earth: there’s no conduction to space.
In such a situation there may be net local conduction over time between individual portions of the surface and the atmosphere. And for finite periods of time there may be net global conduction between the entire surface and the atmosphere. But on average over the entire surface and over time, the net heat flow by conduction has to be zero. Otherwise the atmosphere would eventually reach absolute zero or get so hot as to escape the earth’s potential well.
So it doesn’t matter whether the earth is spinning, whether convection is occurring, whether there’s one sun or many, or whether gravity imposes some temperature gradient on the atmosphere. Barring a long-term trend in the atmosphere’s total energy, all the energy received from the sun is either (1) retained by the earth to give its temperature a long-term trend or (2) radiated back out to space. Barring a long-term trend in the earth’s temperature, that is, the earth’s surface will on average radiate away all the power it receives from the sun, independently of the atmosphere’s size.
Yes, Holder’s inequality being what it is, the atmosphere and the spatial distribution of the incoming radiation will affect what the average temperature is that’s responsible for that outgoing radiation. But at steady state the average power the surface radiates has to equal the average power received from the sun(s).
In contrast, the real earth’s surface radiates more on average than the earth receives from the sun. Since that can’t occur with a non-radiative atmosphere, the earth’s surface temperature does depend on the atmosphere’s composition, not just on its the mass. And the overall conclusion of Nikolov and Zeller’s mental gyrations is that this isn’t true.
So, no matter what mental gyrations they go through to reach their conclusion, there’s something wrong with their reasoning, because their conclusion is wrong.
No, I’m under no illusion that this will convince anyone here. Having succumbed to morbid fascination at the appalling illogic of so many who have obviously studied some physical science, though, I had to vent.
“there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.”
That is perfectly correct but does not lead to the conclusion you think it does.
If you read my description you will see how a circulation of stored energy can lead to a warmed surface for the entire globe whilst not disrupting the energy in / energy out balance.
All you need is for the stored energy to cycle continually through a closed adiabatic loop.
Once the loop is established there is indeed then a net zero energy exchange with the surface but it still heats the surface because it represents a ‘rolling’ delay in the emission of solar energy to space.
I think it may be the ‘rolling over’ aspect that is causing some contributors a conceptual difficulty.
Joe Born:
“But on average over the entire surface and over time, the net heat flow by conduction has to be zero. Otherwise the atmosphere would eventually reach absolute zero or get so hot as to escape the earth’s potential well.”
This doesn’t make sense.
The atmosphere will conduct with the surface according to how dense the atmosphere is and how much insolation the surface receives. If the GHG-free atmosphere is extremely dense, then it’ll absorb lots of energy. It will in turn warm the surface; Willis admits this. The warmed surface will therefore radiate more energy than it would without an atmosphere, but this energy came from the atmosphere that had absorbed energy in the first place. No laws are violated.
The atmosphere (in a typical planet) will also conduct with polar regions and nighttime regions and with molecules that have been cooled by these. At some point an equilibrium will be reached that depends on atmospheric density and solar insolation, and there can be no runaway cooling or heating that violates conservation of energy.
Don132
Note the manner in which Mr. Wilde debates. Faced with an incontrovertible refutation of his position, he avoids addressing it directly but instead says there’s something the refutation failed to take into account. He then follows with word salad that no one understands.
The reason no one understands it is that it doesn’t make sense. And there’s no point in addressing the word salad, because he’ll always take the position that it means something other than what you think it does.
But someone who doesn’t yet have the background knowledge, or who just didn’t get the logic gene, blames his inability to understand on his shortcomings rather than on Mr. Wilde’s poor logic, and he assumes that because Mr. Wilde keeps on responding there must be something to what he says.
Unfortunately, this approach can be amazingly successful. Christopher Monckton has duped the Heartland Institute and Anthony Watts with it, for example. As a consequence, the world is dumber than it should be.
You will husband your time (and intelligence) best by skipping over Mr. Wilde’s comments.
I trust that others will see Joe’s comment for what it is, namely an attempt to divert from unpalatable truth.
Myself: “Now, please explain to us why an atmosphere that is heated by GHGs does not also transmit some of that energy to the surface, thereby causing the surface to radiate more than it receives. Divine heating?”
Myself: because some the energy is radiated out by the atmosphere and that’s how balance is achieved..
I make mistakes, and then I admit them. I’m trying to sort through all the logic here and I get tired, too.
But Willis is wrong when he says his hypothetical planet violates conservation of energy. Since there are no GHGs, the energy from the atmosphere is returned to the surface and not radiated out, and the surface radiates at a higher temperature than it would with GHGs, yes, but none of this violates conservation of energy.
It has to be. The atmosphere MUST absorb energy, and if it can’t radiate it away then that energy must be returned back to the surface from which it absorbed.
Don132
To Willis E, you wrote:
Yes, I am free to believe such, but to suggest that I actually do believe such would be a misrepresentation of my belief. What I believe is that N&Z have made a determined effort to establish a better estimate of Mars temp than all previous references that you rely on, and they explained this clearly in their latest paper to which I posted a link earlier.
I also have not relinquished belief that you might be muddying up their approach with higher-level errors than I can understand. The grander ones knowledge, the grander the mistakes that can be made. (^_^) Rest assured, though, that I continue to try to wade through your objections, hoping that glimmers of deeper understanding might shine through. I always read your stuff, and gain insights from it.
What I will say, in your defense, is that I believe Nikolov became a bit impatient and resorted to taking the lower ground when he brought your background into play in some of his comments. That is irrelevant to me. I try to look at the arguments and not the man, in these situations. This does nothing to reduce his credibility, however — it only shows that people who are passionate about what they do are human and get fed up with annoying situations, when they have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again to make any progress.
I’ve seen great genius in pissed off people. (^_^)
Don132:
I’ll try this once, but, no offense, nothing in the comments you’ve written so far gives me much optimism that you’ll get it.
That’s true. But make sure you keep a distinction in your mind between energy and power. The atmosphere can have prodigious amounts of energy without having any net heat flow occur between it and the surface at steady state. In fact, unless the atmosphere’s energy content—and presumable its temperature—is increasing or decreasing, there can be no net flow.
Not really. Yes, part of the surface could be warmed by the atmosphere—i.e., heat could flow on an ongoing basis from the atmosphere to that part of the surface—but only because heat is flowing from some other part of the surface to the atmosphere, for a net flow of zero. If the net flow into/out of the atmosphere weren’t zero, the atmosphere’s temperature would be changing.
Well, yes, that warmed part of the surface will indeed radiate more—because the other part, the part that’s warming the atmosphere, is cooler than it would be without the atmosphere, so it’s radiating less. The surface as a whole is not radiating more. (Because of the fourth-law relationship between temperature and radiation, the average temperature will be higher with such an atmosphere than without it, but that’s different from a higher level of radiation.)
I don’t know if it will help you understand this stuff, but here’s a highly simplified one-dimensional model that shows how the surface will emit more than system receives from the sun if the atmosphere radiates. If you then change the radiation/absorption percentages to zero to simulate non-greenhouse gases, you’ll see that it won’t.
We will (arbitrarily) divide the atmosphere into two lumped-parameter chunks. Because of convection and conduction, an altitude layer in the real atmosphere can emit more or less radiation than it absorbs. To keep things simple, though, let’s imagine that there’s no convection or conduction: at equilibrium each layer has to emit all it absorbs. Also, although the real atmosphere absorbs some solar radiation directly, the atmosphere in our hypothetical is completely transparent to solar radiation; it absorbs radiation only from the surface and other layers.
The following radiation quantities are consistent with those assumptions but show that the surface emits 2.2 W/m^2 for every 1 W/m^2 it absorbs from the sun. And only that 1 W/m^2 escapes back to space. Yet the emissions equal the absorptions: no energy is created or destroyed.
Each atmosphere layer in this (no-convection, no-conduction, lumped-parameter) hypothetical absorbs ¾ of the radiation it receives, and it emits all the radiation it absorbs. Also, 1 W/m^2 comes from space and the same amount is returned to space, but the surface emits 2.2 W/m^2. If you go through the arithmetic you can confirm this. If you so change it that each atmosphere layer absorbs all the radiation it receives, then the surface will emit 3.0 W/m^2. But, if you change the atmosphere to a non-greenhouse gas, then neither atmosphere layer will absorb any of the radiation that it receives, and it will therefore emit none. So the surface will receive no radiation from the atmosphere, and it therefore radiates only the 1.0 W/m^2 it receives from the sun.
And this is true independently of whether the total energy in an atmospheric layer is gargantuan or minuscule; the net conductive flow is zero.
Desperate, just desperate.
Converts a perfectly clear concept into utter gibberish.
Stephen in reply to Joe:
“Desperate, just desperate.
Converts a perfectly clear concept into utter gibberish.”
Disagree, Stephen. This is how we descend into name-calling and arguing.
I think Joe has valid points and they should be able to be logically answered. I’m still thinking of an answer myself. Where’s the flaw in Joe’s thinking? Point it out if you think it’s there.
We’re looking through different paradigms and in large part talking past each other.
Joe: “The following radiation quantities … show that the surface emits 2.2 W/m^2 for every 1 W/m^2 it absorbs from the sun. And only that 1 W/m^2 escapes back to space.” Say what, Joe? The earth is emitting more than it absorbs? I thought this entire discussion started because that can’t happen?
Joe: “.. . let’s imagine that there’s no convection or conduction: at equilibrium each layer has to emit all it absorbs.” OK, maybe, but cutting off conduction/convection is making another universe altogether, one that doesn’t work like ours.
So yes, I’m confused, and the people who understand this might be able to clarify.
Don132
Ok, then I await clarification and will then consider further but I don’t see what he is getting at currently.
Note that he was rude to me first, though.
Joe Born January 5, 2019 at 2:36 am
Thanks, Joe. The truth of it is so obvious that it staggers me that so many people absolutely refuse to face it. In a steady-state condition with no GHGs, there can be no net conduction of heat between the atmosphere and the surface. As you say, if there were the atmosphere would eventually either freeze or boil away.
I also had to laugh at your accurate description of Stephen Wilde’s method of debate …
All the best of the New Year to you,
w.
Adiabatic cooling denial ?
Thankyou cementafriend. You can show some folk the truth but they refuse to recognise it.
Just got to keep it out there…. Gas Laws Rule, Entropy and Gradients Win. Brett
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation (SB)_assumes a closed cavity with perfect reflecting surfaces inside, and a hole to measure the flux of the electromagnetic radiation leaving the hole.
The SB surface is an imaginary surface *INSIDE* the object.
SB works at estimating the surface temperature of the Sun because the Sun can be modeled as an ideal furnace, i.e., a closed cavity with perfect reflecting surfaces.
And even with these assumptions, it works pretty well.
But the Earth not a star.
When you apply the SB to the Earth, it produces the temperature measured by the satellite plus a piece of junk.
The resulting temperature is most likely in the stratosphere.
A greenhouse is a physical structure which reduces heat transfers to conduction.
A greenhouse gas is atmospheric gas enclosed by the greenhouse.
The atmosphere cools by convection.
Hence the atmosphere and the greenhouse have nothing common.
In order for the atmosphere to behave like greenhouse, one would have to introduce magical molecules and a hockey stick’.
Oh wait, Hansen provided the magical molecules and Mann provided the hockey stick.
Everyone in favor of consensus science say ‘Aye’.
Definitely. If surface temperatures are due to compressional heating, the added temperature would radiate away.
That is exactly what you can observe in cold places on earth, temperature inversion starting at the surface. Pressure does not keep the surface warm.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/baroim190203.gif
No water vapor, no heat.
Perhaps, but the pressure must generate SOME heat, surely its not zero.
Klem, pressure doesn’t generate heat. CompressING a gas generates heat, but when it is at a steady pressure no heat is generated.
w.
Does increased pressure result in higher temperature when heat is added?
Icisil,
Yes. That is exactly the point. The highest pressure is nearest the surface.
I think we’re getting warmer!
Don132
For a given number of molecules, having a higher density means that a given amount of energy is distributed among a higher number of molecules, thus the amount by which each molecule is warmed is decreased by greater density: Less energy added per molecule.
The relationship between molecular velocity and temp is linear, so I believe that adding a given amount of energy to a less dense gas will heat it more, not less.
Sorry, I rewrote the description and did not change the first part of it.
It should start “For a given volume…”
Let’s keep volume constant and increase the number of molecules with pressure.
Volume x in the stratosphere containing y number of molecules each having z kinetic energy will not have the same temp as volume x at the earth’s surface with (let’s say) y^100 number of molecules each having z kinetic energy.
Is that correct?
It is not about weight heating the ground, it’s about the tremendous weight of the atmosphere at the surface being warmed by the surface, and the near-surface atmospheric density (a result of atmospheric weight due to atmospheric bulk and gravity) necessarily keeps the conducted heat near the surface: that’s where most of the atmospheric molecules are.
Without surface atmospheric density, there is no greenhouse effect at all. Try it! How about: Mars?
Don132
“The relationship between molecular velocity and temp is linear, so I believe that adding a given amount of energy to a less dense gas will heat it more, not less.”
That doesn’t make sense. A dense surface atmosphere will have more molecules heated by that surface through conduction, and therefore a given volume of gas will have more molecules that are sped up through conduction. As the temperature of a gas is the average of the speed of all the molecules in a volume of gas, the temperature of a denser gas warmed by surface conduction will be warmer than a less dense gas.
Why is it cooler three kilometers up? Primarily because the atmosphere is less dense three kilometers up.
Why is the thermosphere cold even though the molecules in it are moving exceedingly fast? Because the atmosphere is so thin there. The molecules are “hot” but a volume of gas in the thermosphere is cold.
Don132
” Klem, pressure doesn’t generate heat. CompressING a gas generates heat, but when it is at a steady pressure no heat is generated”
But our atmosphere is not at a steady pressure, every day it varies. meteorologists tell us daily that high and low pressure systems are sweeping through our region.
It sounds like pressure variability to me.
How does this not generate as least SOME heat?
*head spins around like little girl in The Exorcist*
The pressure is not steady. That would be the heat death of the planet. That would be the bicycle tire blown up once and done.
The atmosphere is free to expand (less the pressure of the currently diminished solar wind).
Sorry, yours and Roy’s argument fails to account for entropy as energy of position. Bang a cumulonimbus into the stratosphere (they dent it) and that suckah is coming down around the periphery of the cell. Energy is conserved, but part of the energy is potential energy, like a rock precariously perched on a canyon wall. Entropy statistically guarantees the rock will come down to reduce the energy of position. Mass over distance is work.
The tragedy here is that Ned Nikolov overstates the case just as you do. You’re both right. Your arguments are not exclusive. The greenhouse effect definitely exists (albeit in a form different than human CO2 reducing radiation to space). Ned’s gravitatinal warming also exists.
Menicholas December 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm said
No it isn’t. The relationship between energy and temperature is linear that means the (absolute)temperature is proportional to the √ of the molecular velocity. Pilots know this because they know that the delta T with increase in speed is (TAS /100)^2
KE = 1/2MV^2 applies to molecules just as surely as bigger lumps of stuff.
Willis (and Roy).
OK, now let’s substitute a totally non-GHG atmosphere (maybe pure nitrogen?) to 1 bar surface pressure.
Where is the surface from which the SB calculation is to be performed?
Is there no thermal conduction or convection and zero lapse rate?
Regards, just asking.
Bob Fernley-Jones has some very good questions that should not be ignored.
As for comparing a planet with no atmosphere with one with an atmosphere and using a law that does not apply (theoretically and empirically) to a body, for the said body, I think that Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner already explained quite clearly why it’s not a good idea.
Bob Fernley-Jones December 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
The S-B calculations are only valid for something which radiates. There are only two things in the system, the atmosphere and the surface. The atmosphere doesn’t radiate. The surface does. Where would you guess that the calculations take place?
There is indeed a lapse rate. However, since the surface is evenly heated and there is no loss of energy from the atmosphere there is neither convection nor conduction.
Regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach: “There is indeed a lapse rate.”
There you lost me. I thought your hypothetical was a “perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns” with a perfectly non-radiative atmosphere.
That sounds as though the surface temperature would be uniform. What drives the adiabatic expansion normally thought to cause the lapse rate? What did I miss?
Joe Born January 1, 2019 at 11:23 am
Yeah, you’re right, I misspoke. The atmosphere would be isothermal.
There’s a good discussion of this question by Professor Brown here …
Always good to hear from you, have a wonderful New Year,
w.
Willis,
I forgot to mention that I agree that GHG effect is well demonstrated but that there is other stuff going on too, and yes, e.g. nitrogen apparently only absorbs incoming UV.
I disagree that there would be no convection. The modelled flat surface planet is spherical and rotating, with complications including tidal and Coriolis effects. Also, gas contact with the surface must result in conduction boosted by convection/advection even though gases have low conductivity. Consider an analogy of a vertical rod of low conductivity material. The taller the rod, (equivalent to higher atmospheric pressure) the slower will be the rate of heat escape from the surface.
Haven’t done the sums of course, just wondering.
Regards
Bob Fernley-Jones January 1, 2019 at 12:49 pm
My bad if I didn’t mention it, but in my mind the planet in my thought experiment is not rotating. As you can see, I wanted to simplify the situation as much as possible.
Next, there is no conduction. The air in the experiment will be isothermal, and will be at the same temperature as the surface. See Refutaion of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates for details.
Finally, the atmosphere can only lose heat to the surface. So your vertical rod doesn’t apply.
Best regards,
w.
“pressure doesn’t generate heat. Compressing a gas generates heat, but when it is at a steady pressure no heat is generated.”
–
There is potential energy, There is motion energy, heat is constantly being generated by the molecules in the gas until they run down.
If the gas is at constant steady pressure it is generating heat, the balloon is not deflating.
Your comment is apropos in a system with no energy input.
Ie no sun, the atmosphere would compress into ice sheets. Energy shut down.
So anywhere that pressure is preserved there is heat being generated to help it do so.
Even if the initial stimulus is external energy.
Now it may not be new energy [Your definition of generation I guess] but the collisions do occur and heat is generated.
Hence in any atmosphere with an energy input and a vaguely steady pressure there is heat being generated by the motion of the particles higher with higher pressures due to higher gravity.
That is why the gas stays as a gas under constant pressure.
NZ do have some science behind them.
–
Semantics is not science.
“pressure doesn’t generate heat” is not correct.
Pressure does not increase the energy in a system is much more precise.
The two do have a relationship
Gay-Lussac’s Law: The Pressure Temperature Law
This law states that the pressure of a given amount of gas held at constant volume is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature.
Now how does it stay at constant volume again?
Willis,
Thanks for your interest,
Sorry, I was relating to Roy’s post and his model which involves a great deal of non-equilibrium stuff. For instance, the thermal inertia of the whatever regolith or rock surface (nothing to do with albedo) is a tricky one as the inclined sphere rotates from midday alignment to midnight. In demonstration, I can’t recall the details now but remember that NASA screwed-up on predicting the surface T’s on the moon at one stage (might have been from overestimation of the amount of dust, I vaguely recall).
At a quick look, I’m not satisfied with Robert Brown’s paper that it applies to Roy’s unstable model, and that therein a non-GHG column could be isothermal. In Roy’s rotating sphere I submit that the surface air T will mostly be different to that of the surface itself (in part because of convection/advection).
By definition, the non-GHG in contact with the surface is not heated by the sun (ignoring UV absorption) and so prima facie should be very cold at the surface. So how is it as you say that it is at the same T as the surface? What would the heat transfer process from the surface be? Might it be via conduction (curiously with zero interface resistance), and devoid of any of the thermal inertias? My long understanding has been that if you heat a fluid in a gravitational field from below, then convection and conduction will result and I can see no reason why that would not be true in Roy’s model.
The analogy was intended to show that an atmosphere slows the escape of heat from the surface even if it comprises only non-GHG’s.
Regards, Bob F-J
“The S-B calculations are only valid for something which radiates.”
That is not correct. They are not valid in general for ‘something which radiates’. A lot of problems are in the climastrological pseudo science because they consider as valid a law where it isn’t.
Willis states:
How can the surface of this planet be equally heated when it presents itself to the sun at different angles, and when the surface has different albedos?
If the surface was equally heated, there would not be a significant difference in temperatures between the Arctic, Antarctic, and the equator.
Further, a not insignificant area of this planet is covered by tropical rain forests. In a tropical rain forest, how much heating is there of the surface by the sun given the thickness of the canopy? I have seen estimates that the dense canopy blocks about 95% of the sun light such that there must be relatively little direct warming of the surface. Of course it is warm near the surface but this is due to high humidity, not due to direct solar irradiance.
The canopy is significantly higher than the surface (may be 30 to 40 metres above ground), and whilst the canopy receives solar energy some significant proportion of this is used to power photosynthesis, such that the absorption and re-radiation from the canopy can never be the same.
richard verney January 2, 2019 at 5:06 pm
READ THE DAMN LINK! I even provided a freakin’ PICTURE!
Sheesh … do your homework, you won’t look so foolish.
w.
I am talking about planet Earth, you are not talking about anything remotely like planet Earth (in your Link).
Your theoretical planet has even albedo (indeed it is a blackbody) and it is surrounded by 1000s of suns which evenly heat the theoretical planet. The surface is not presented to the sun at different angles because of the number of suns, and it is even stationary, and if it has an axial tilt that would be irrelevant because of the even distributions of the 1000s of suns. It does not have unequally distributed storage heaters (the oceans) etc. That conceptually is nothing like planet Earth.
In the real world, where there are differences one will normally see different responses. So for example if the population of this planet is about 7 billion people, the future population growth will depend upon the ratio of men to women and their distribution. So there will be a very different population growth if the split is about 50/50 with about 3.5 billion of each, but a very different population growth if there are say just 100 million women and about 6.9 billion men, or if 90% of the women are over 50 but 95% of the men are between 1 and 10 years old.
Thus, in the real world, on planet Earth, for example, the distribution of the land masses is pivotal. Even the slightest movement such as the opening up of the Panama Isthmuth can lead to a radical response to the same solar input and the same CO2 levels.
The devil is almost always in the detail, and this is a potential problem when one tries to extract a though experiment into the real world. Whilst thought experiments are interesting, one should not lose sight of their limitations.
Tom, for crying out loud we do NOT say that. SOL provides the energy. Brett
Tom, why assume there is no sunlight. We are not talking about something in steel, but atmosphere in space under that ol’ sun. Just because Willis cannot see the difference between the gas phase and solid steel, two totally different forms of matter (nope, no ‘ideal steel law’ applies), and he imagines he can make up equations that trump the work of fine Physicists, does not make the null hypothesis invalid. Which is what N and Z support. Brett
I was considering the equilibrium effect of gravitational compression, apart from the solar effects. Whatever warming one has from gravitational compression would radiate away, as would the effects from solar heating.
It was more a matter of dealing with one factor at a time.
Tom, except I deal with the real world, and input is punctuated variably but continuosly so. People should get out more….. Please stop making your assumptions about what I write. No models can approach reality in this situation. Brett
Once, as a college student, I figured this out. It was a matter of increasing refractive index approaching the black body, but that’s a detail, and one an atmosphere of increasing pressure supplies. The prof couldn’t figure out what was wrong with it (outside of breaking the laws of thermodynamics) and neither could I. I decided to trust the laws of thermodynamics.
Somewhere in grad school, I figured it out – black body radiation depends on the refractive index of the space it’s in. I’d love to claim a marvelous proof that was too large for the margins of the page, but I’d be lying. It was over fifty years ago, and I’ve simply forgotten the details.
Two comments on that.
SOURCE
Since the thermal radiation that we’re discussing is typically between 5,000 and 35,000 nm (5 – 35 microns), the error is meaninglessly small.
Next, the apparent conflict with the laws of thermodynamics is discussed here.
Best New Years wishes,
w.
I think an even simpler explanation is to observe what happens with a hand-operated air pump. Fill up the tire on your kid’s bicycle, and touch the metal outlet fitting with you finger. You will not forget the experience! You will pull your hand away quickly, and possibly teach the kids standing nearby some words they hadn’t heard before (at least from you!). Touch it 10 minutes later, and neither it or the air in the tire will be much different from the air temperature.
The message here is that, yes, compressing air will cause it to heat up as per Charles Law. But, through conduction and radiation, (as explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) the heated gas will come to be in equilibrium with its surroundings. That is, without the constant addition of energy equal to that which is lost, the compressed gas will decrease in temperature until equilibrium is reached.
That would apply to CONTINUOUS pressure increase only (work). A STABLE pressure is not the same..Bad analogy I would think..If you stop pumping, the pressure stays the same, but the temperature of the gas, when released, would be colder than the surrounding air..( I’ve used Acetylene/Oxygen tanks at work before and the released gas was always cold)..? What am I missing ? (probably lots..LOL) Or is it the release of pressure that makes the gas colder ?
Till you light it …D’OH !
Boom boom.
Nice one Marcus………..
In the case of acetylene (it’s actually dissolved in an acetone/support mixture) the liberation of acetylene involves a phase change that removes heat necessary for its vaporization and hence the tank cools.
Pressurize a gas, and it heats up (that’s why scuba tanks are usually in a tank of water while they are being filled to around 3300 PSI, so the water can adsorb the heat). Typically when the gas is later released, the gas absorbs roughly the same amount of heat as was created when it was pressurized. This is also roughly how A/C systems work. The net result being that heat is being moved around. Pressuring a gas does cause the gas to heat, but the heat is usually lost to something until, as Marcus says, it reaches ambient temperature. The once heated gas cannot stay at the pressure heated temperature unless it is in a perfectly insulated container. As I understand it, Earth’s atmosphere loses heat to space. Once the heat of pressurization is lost, it cannot continue to provide its heat – it is gone, else it would be a kind of perpetual motion (energy) machine.
Correct Clay all the junk being peddled assumes a closed system, the system isn’t closed exactly as the Scuba tank shows. As I said above if it worked like this every scuba tank diver would be swimming around with 3rd degree burns in the middle of there back.
Marcus I think that comment sounds like how the refrigeration cycle works in your ‘fridge ‘.
You have it. While air is being compressed, kinetic energy is changed to heat energy. Once the pumping stops there’s no more kinetic energy to produce heat. It’s just compressed air in a container. Atmospheric air is compressed by gravity but not in the active sense of a mechanical tire pump or air compressor. Gravity maintains the compression and the amount of compression is a function of altitude.
I’ve tried to rephrase what you wrote just like the famous science-popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson habitually rephrases everything anyone says to him.
Me: “Hello.”
Neil: “You mean ‘Greetings’ or ‘How’s it going’ or some other phrase commonly understood to …blah blah…”
CKMoore and Marcus
The air IS heated during compression (ala Charles Law) and the pressure is maintained inside the tire. Yet, the tire does not stay hot.
Then why is it colder as you go higher in altitude, where the pressure is lower?
Clyde Spencer December 31, 2018 at 12:20 pm said
Charles’law does not have anything to do with the heating of a gas as it is compressed. Nothing At all.
Charles’ law: The volume of a given mass of a gas, held at constant pressure, is propotional to the absolute temerature. See, nothing to do with compression, in fact neccesarilly, by defintion, pressure is held constant.
acementhead
I stand corrected. I should have said Gay-Lussac’s law;
Gravity doesn’t cause a pressure gradient in a pile of books, but it does in the atmosphere, and that’s why the temperature drops as you go to higher altitudes and lower pressures.
There is a fundamental difference between solids and gases. But that said, if there is enough gravitational forces exerted on a solid object, solids will be heated, eg ., the Jovian moon Io. As Wikipedia notes:
Our planet’s atmosphere is also subject to constant gravitational tides which result in the atmospheric bulge. Our atmosphere is constantly being pulled by the moon and the sun, sometimes working in opposition and sometimes working in conjunction.
The atmosphere is constantly being displace from below by the action of the tides (as they come and go, and by the passing of mountain ranges as the planet spins on it’s axis. On top of that our planet’s atmosphere is constantly being heated from above by the sun and below by the surface and air currents are constantly circulating in 3 dimensions causing work to be done, the by product of which is heat.
Whether these processes are enough to explain why the atmosphere can maintain its heat is probably anyone’s guess. I have never seen anyone try and calculate the effect of all of this, and whether this point is sufficient to address and overcome the point made by Clay Sanborn December 31, 2018 at 11:15 am
a hand-operated air pump
=======
You are using the wring model. Consider a sterling engine. When you rotate the shaft you get a hot side and a cold side.
Now mount a solar panel and electric motor to the shaft. Put the hot side of the sterling engine on the surface and the cold side in the upper atmosphere.
The surface will now be warmer and the upper atmosphere cooler but the average will be unchanged.
When air compresses and heats, there is “work” done of some form to cause the compression (W= the integral of -PdV according to chapter 1 of my old P Chem book). This is a reversible process so when air in the atmosphere sinks and compresses, it heats, and when it rises, it cools (pretty basic stuff). There should be no “net” addition of energy to the system. On the other hand, the greenhouse effect takes energy emitted by the earth towards space and sends part of it back towards earth, so there is a net increase in energy at and near the surface (again pretty basic stuff). I think this is consistent with what Dr. Spencer is saying in a comment below.
Any experts out there want to add or correct my understanding here?
“On the other hand, the greenhouse effect takes energy emitted by the earth towards space and sends part of it back towards earth, so there is a net increase in energy at and near the surface (again pretty basic stuff).”
On the other hand, the atmospheric greenhouse effect (NZ) takes energy emitted by the earth towards space and keeps part of it near the surface due to the density of the near-surface atmosphere which has absorbed heat from the surface via conduction and convection, so there is a net increase in energy at and near the surface (pretty basic stuff.)
I’m not sure that any of the above means that the surface must necessarily have more energy than it’s supposed to have, i.e., that it’s radiating more than it receives.
It is not about compressive heating. If it is, then please state where NZ say explicitly that it is.
Don132
From the article above:
“In short, it is the theory that there really isn’t a so-called “greenhouse effect”, and that the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.”
I consider compressional heating as a one-time event where once the atmosphere is compressed and in place, the temperature then equaliberates via various heat transfer mechanisms (convection, conduction, radiation) to a new equilibrium, unlike the GH effect where there is a continual boost in energy. In reading reviews of NZ, one of the reviewers stated NZ basically discovered the ideal gas law in an inefficient way with R2=0.9999. The ideal gas law connects temperature to pressure in a pretty ridged way (paraphrased from the reviewer).
I’m not well versed in the NZ topic and at this point will defer to others.
Farmer Ch E retired, you are quoting from Willis and Spencer who assume that NZ are talking about “compressional heating by the atmosphere.” NZ are not talking about compressional heating of the atmosphere, and they are not talking about the heating that takes place when a gas is compressed. Suggest that Willis and Spencer review the theory before making claims about it.
If the radiative greenhouse effect is what warms our atmosphere then we should be able to see a similar effect for all planets with GHGs, which is most of them, and we should be able to derive a universal formula for all of them. This has not happened. What NZ have done is search for a universal formula that captured the variables that mattered, using dimensional analysis. What they found is that the presence of GHGs did not matter; what mattered was atmospheric density and proximity to the sun. Those who are wedded to the radiative theory don’t like this and so assume that the theory says something else, so they can tear it down.
Over and over something about compressional heating is repeated. It is not about compressional heating. It is about atmospheric density and the concentration of warmed molecules where the atmosphere is most dense– namely, at the planetary surface.
Don132
I would consider that earth’s atmosphere acts like a continuous pump. The atmosphere expands and contracts. Whether gravity does this or not, I wouldn’t conjecture because no one understands or understood gravity (not even Einstein, but that is a topic for another day). However DWIR does exist as even Ned Nikolov is forced to admit or why would cloudy nights be warmer than non cloudy nights. WILLIS Could you please put your thinking cap on to try to destroy Thayer Watkins conclusions about cloudy nights ? I took Thayer’s conclusions and figured out the maximum effect of CO2 from that.
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
The following is my calculations given that Thayer is correct in his.
********************************************************************************
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.
So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).
So all we have to do is calculate Twet.
Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.
Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C? This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 13.5 % and the effect of CO2 = 1.5%.
Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While your calculated climate sensitivity to 4x CO2 is reassuring, I still call ‘bs’ on the whole premise. Switch the date to the late 30s or 1940-41, and then there has been no statistically significant warming in spite of a huge increase in CO2. Set the starting point back to the end of the Roman Republic or the Minoan Civilization, and there has been a huge cooling inspite of the doubling or more of CO2.
It would be awesome if someone could get funding for an experiment to finally probe things one way or the other. Say at least 2 large corrals or compounds, with 30m or more high walls (made with plastic sheeting probably), with different levels of CO2. CO2 is heavier than air and should stay in the corral, the high wall preventing winds from mixing things up with the outside air. One compound with 400ppm for control, the other at at least double.
Maybe telephone poles would be tall enough to support walls tall enough to keep the CO2 at the right concentration.
I’m sure someone here has a better, more creative idea for a definitive experiment, better than air in jar with heat lamps, bit I throw my idea out there to start the discussion.
“This slight warming is for reasons other than clouds” This should read
This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds.
Fixed. I hate typos.
w.
Alan, I do not think that NZ say that DWIR does not exist. They say that it’s not as important as we believe. I think Stephen Wilde put it best: atmospheric pressure allows the radiative effects to work as they do.
Don132
My posting did not state that 0.18C was the actual climate temperature effect of CO2. What it did state was that 0.18C is the maximum possible effect of CO2 at 410ppm. The effect may well be ZERO C. My conclusions of a local temperature effect were derived and built upon from Thayer Watkin’s article. If Thayer is wrong then I am wrong. However my conclusions are from a local analysis. They do not conflict with either Ned Nikolov’s theory or the general GHG theory of the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. I simply took the observation of a maximum observed effect of clouds of 11C and calculated the maximum possible effect of CO2 at today’s levels of 410ppm. The real effect of CO2 may be ZERO but at least I have shown that the maximum effect possible is 0.18C.
However there is another side to this whole scare. At the present rate of increase of net CO2 of 0.5 % , this represents that CO2 will exceed the UK workplace saftey limit of 5000 ppm in 500 years time. This does bother me because if the increase of net CO2 in the atmosphere does increase at that rate, then we can’t ignore that. If it was 5000 years, I wouldn’t worry about it but 500 years is a different matter. HOWEVER the rate of net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and down every year. The rate of change over the last 60 years has been 0.423 % calculated as a geometric average or 0.48% calculated as an arithmetic average. this may well level off to ZERO in the future or it may continue. If it does continue then we DO have a problem in 652 years at the geometrical rate of increase of 0.423 %. I am a total skeptic of temperature changes and of drowning in rising sea levels, but the possible choking to death on CO2 levels is a nagging problem in ~ 600 years.
Air raising takes energy away from the surface. Air descending brings energy back to the surface. Radiation takes energy away from the surface. Back radiation brings energy back to the surface. Neither process creates any energy, neither can result in any net energy increase.
You’re not missing anything, Marcus. That’s the point. Once the pressure stabilizes, there are no more temperature effects.
I don’t know why everyone else didn’t see this immediately. Yes, there was high temperature from the energy of the condensing of the planet and the atmosphere, but it was a temporary phenomenon. After things got stable, it would have cooled off to equilibrium.
Clyde Spencer December 31, 2018 at 9:58 am said
This is incorrect. Charles law does not predict the amount of adiabatic heating when a gas is compressed.
Classical Charles’ Law The volume of a given mass of gas, held at constant pressure, is proportional to the absolute temperature. It is incorporated in the formua pV=nRT which appears to be widely misunderstood on this site.
More at Wikipedia(which actually gets this sort of stuff right)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws
Of course. Both points of view are right and legitimate. They are in fact complementary. In the standard atmosphere model, this observation results in the lower layers of atmosphere having a temperature higher than the upper ones. The gradient of temperature being derived from the variation of pressure with altitude dp/dh=-𝜌h and pressure being linked to temperature by the perfect gas law P=𝜌RT.
At the level of the ground, there is no radiation equilibrium, only 1/3 of the heat flux (approximately) is evacuated by IR radiation, 2/3 are evacuated by convection and as sensible heat (water vapour).
The effect of the presence of “greenhouse gases” is that the radiation equilibrium happens not at the surface of the earth, but at a higher altitude where temperatures (according to the standard atmosphere) are colder.
There is no easy way to determine the mean altitude of radiation equilibrium. The atmosphere itself not being a black body, the equilibrium altitude is not the same for every IR wavelength. Actually the temperature of the ground is determined by the position of the “transparent IR window” through which 1/3 of the heat evacuated by the ground leaks to space. The “edge” of the transparent window varies slightly when “greenhouse gases” (water vapour, carbon dioxide and others) concentrations increase, leading to a slight increase in the radiation temperature of the ground. The effect varies from place to place, instant to instant, and with the cloud coverage, so that, up to now, it has been impossible to hint its average value with mathematical models.
But we can calculate the maximum temperature effect of CO2 locally, which will also be its maximum effect everywhere. See my above post.
Hmm, I fill up wheelchair tires all the time, some up to 110psi. Never been burned by a hot valve stem, never even felt warmth, to be honest.
Does this mean that pressure has no effect or just that it is less than they predict ? I always thought gases got colder when compressed ?
“According to Charle’s – GayLussac’s Law, the volume of a fixed amount of gas maintained at constant pressure is directly proportional to its temperature.
or simply,
V
T
=
c
o
n
s
tan
t
When the gas is compressed it means that the volume decreases. As Charle’s – GayLussac’s Law states, we could predict that the temperature of the gas would also decrease.”
Marcus, gases actually get warmer when compressed, not colder. However, the part that Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) don’t understand is that this is not a constant on-going process that can lead to a permanently higher temperature.
Best regards,
w.
W, i would like you to find a quote from NZ to support your assertion as to what they do not understand.
EdB, it doesn’t matter what their theory is. My proof shows that NO compression, pressure or gravity based theory can work in the absence of greenhouse gases.
As to quotes from N&Z, take a look at The Mystery of Equation 8.
w.
Willis, what you say is impossible in spite of the math.
In the absence of GHGs, a warmed planetary surface must warm (via conduction and convection) an atmosphere composed of N2 and O2 with the same pressure as ours, and that warmth must be concentrated near the surface (ie, the average kinetic energy of a volume of atmosphere [“temperature”] MUST be higher with greater pressure simply because there are most molecules per unit volume.) Furthermore, this heat wouldn’t be radiated away by the atmosphere. There is no violation of any physical law in any of this. Therefore pressure does not cause heating, but it allows heat to be retained– something like how GHGs work.
Don132
Having reviewed (but not read every reply), I’ll offer a couple of observations for the next flare-up of this debate.
What I have not seen in this discussion are the terms Path Function and State Function. The error of much of this discussion is confusing the two. A gas equation of state of the form PV = f(nT) is a State Function (the ideal gas law being the most popular form) and can be arranged to predict the tempeature of a closed system of gas at a given P,V,n. What is overlooked is that for a given slice of the atmosphere near the surface, the current combination of PVT is a Path Function becasue the system is not closed (hot air can move in/it can move out, heat is radiated in/out, heat is conducted in/out, etc., etc., etc.).
Thus, your perferred equation of state can only be used to predict the change in temperature from State 1 to State 2. One might be tempted to use the (relatively) constant (averaged?) condtions of outside the atmosphere (State 1) to predict a ground-level State 2; however, because your selected PVn slice of atmosphere is not a closed system, the prediction is only transiently correct. The discussion around filling scub tanks (with and without the water bath) illustrate the problem exactly. Consequently, it is an improper use of thermodynamics to attempt to predict surface temperature from PV work alone.
As many have pointed-out, the N&Z work is not a thermodynamic prediction. It is rather an attempt at heat transfer prediction. We don’t all freeze to death when the sun goes down becasue the earth’s atmosphere is an insulating system.
In engineering, heat transfer rate (Q) is generally writen in the form:
Q = U x f(T1,T2)
There are many forms of the equation: U can be modeled by a thermal conductivity; the temperature difference can be a linear difference, a difference of squares, a difference of 4th power (common in radiation transfer), log-mean difference, and others. Generally, engineers only model the coeficient U from first principals (like thermal conductivity) in very narrowly defined and simplistic systems. The N&Z work spiffys-up the general heat transfer equation:
Q = f(P, other stuff) x f(T).
Perform a heat balance (Qin = Qout) and pick a reference temperature and one has a predictive equation for air temperature based on heat transfer. Here’s the rub, if you look at Equation 8, it has squishy parameters and a numeric coefficient. Consequently, it’s curve fitting as Willis has explained.
Now, in N&Z’s defense, curve fitting has a long and distinquished career in heat transfer. In the general equation above, U is rarely derived from first principals: real engineering systems are seldom sufficiently neat/simple. Consequently, we measure/estimate/guess a simple numeric coefficient and pair it with the form of tempature difference (linear, square, etc.) that provided the best fit over the narrow range of temperature for which we’ll accept this approximation. Useful tool.
However, as has been discussed on this site numerous times, curve-fitting parameters is at best sketchy proof that the parameters so-fitted rise to the exalted state of first principals. The greater the number of fitting parameters in the equation, the more dubious the conclusion. The dimensional analysis is a good way to avoid terms for your fit that are a priori incorrect (eg: P/V for energy); but, it is in no way proof that the term is a proper element of the model. In the jargon, a necessary but not sufficient condition.
So, of your kindness, please lay down your thermodyanmic clubs and take up your heat transfer clubs. The discussion may now resume.
Don said: “Willis, what you say is impossible in spite of the math.
In the absence of GHGs, a warmed planetary surface must warm (via conduction and convection) an atmosphere composed of N2 and O2 with the same pressure as ours, and that warmth must be concentrated near the surface (ie, the average kinetic energy of a volume of atmosphere [“temperature”] MUST be higher with greater pressure simply because there are most molecules per unit volume.) ”
There is no contradiction there. The temperature gradient results from the hydrodynamic pressure of the gas column. What changes in a transparent atmosphere (without GHG) is that the radiative equilibrium must take place at the level of the ground when it takes place at different altitudes depending on IR wavelengths with GHGs.
As a result, the radiative temperature equilibrium takes place higher in the atmosphere and, thanks to the temperature gradient of a normal atmosphere, the surface is warmer.
What actually determines the temperature “at the level of the ground” is the wavelength of the edge of the atmospheric windows which depends mostly on water vapor and a little on carbon dioxide concentrations.
What actually determines the temperature at the level of the ground is the amount of KE released within descending air masses.
Any radiative imbalances are neutralised by convective adjustments.
It is established science that convective adjustments can stabilise or neutralise radiative imbalances
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable; convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)”
and:
Note that the hydrostatic equation depicts the vertical balance of force for a piece of fluid at rest. The balance is between the upward pressure gradient force and downward gravitational force.
The hydrostatic equation is the vertical component of the momentum equation (Newton’s equation of motion) for the fluid parcel when the forces are in perfect balance and the net acceleration = 0.”
Readers should study that lecture since it explains the concept of hydrostatic balance within atmospheres.
It appears that those climate scientists who apply the radiative gases theory of climate change have overlooked the means by which convection neutralises radiative imbalances.
Paul says, in reference to GHGs:
“As a result, the radiative temperature equilibrium takes place higher in the atmosphere and, thanks to the temperature gradient of a normal atmosphere, the surface is warmer.”
I’m modifying my position to say not only has atmospheric heat been concentrated toward the surface by pressure, but also that density caused by pressure allows the atmosphere to absorb heat from the surface, and hold it there. I change my position because of the thinking I’ve gone through that shows me that my understanding of NZ, Wilde, and Holmes was incomplete in that I didn’t realize (explicitly) that an atmosphere without GHGs must be able to absorb energy, which is the only way to resolve Willis’ hypothetical planet riddle. Stephen has been saying this all along.
So if pressure is doing something, is radiation doing something on top of that? Or are the radiation calculations arbitrarily designed to make up the difference for surface T versus incoming, because we assume that pressure plays no role? Radiative theory is self-consistent within its own paradigm; we’d expect that. But are the underlying assumptions of the paradigm correct?
In the view that we count down from emissions height, pressure is just a bystander, waiting on the sidelines to make equations come out correctly but not doing anything.
Don132
Willis, “gases actually get warmer when compressed” = logic, but when a gas is released into space, does it take the heat with it ? I’m so confused….(and it has nothing to do with my overindulgence on N.Y. Eve.) lol ..D’OH !
Willis,
I think I’m on your side on this, but cannot gravity be considered a “constant ongoing process”?
It doesn’t stop when the compression is ‘complete’ even if convection is acting in the opposite direction
This is hard for my brain, so please be generous in your response.
Mothcatcher, gravity cannot do constant work. If it could we’d just harness it for a perpetual motion machine. It is a force, not energy.
w.
That’s why my brain hurts. It’s a force, it’s not energy. Agreed. But it’s still a force. Doesn’t stop being a force when it has captured an atmosphere.
Willis, I still don’t understand your proof. The atmosphere doesn’t have to do work. (You have proved above that it does not.)
However, your thought experiment does deviate from an ideal blackbody. I believe the addition of an atmosphere (with no GHGs) does change the radiative physics in your thought experiment. [Even using an atmosphere that cannot radiate energy.]
As another person stated the problem:
“If the planet without an atmosphere has temperature T1 and you were to magically add an atmosphere, let’s say with no GHGs that cannot radiate at all in IR wavelengths, according to the N-Z theory the temperature at the surface should rise to T2.
But if it does rise, surface radiation going out to space should increase, which would not be captured by the atmosphere; this would create a state of disequilibrium.”
I do not believe this is correct, because the thought experiment planet significantly deviates from an ideal blackbody in the distribution of energy it is radiating.
In the initial thought experiment planet (no atmosphere), the bands between 30N and 30S of the planet will be absorbing the bulk of the incoming solar radiation. This area would be far hotter than the poles, and would be re-radiating a massive amount of infrared energy back out to space. After the planet reached thermal equilibrium, the outgoing radiation necessarily must equal the incoming radiation. However, the equatorial band is going to be blazing hot and will be radiating out the bulk of the energy budget for the planet. T1 is the integral of the temperature of the planet.
Now consider the second planet with a magically introduced atmosphere (with no greenhouse gases including no water vapor). Once again, the bands between 30N and 30S will be receiving the exact same amount of incoming solar radiation (since our atmosphere is effectively transparent). However, in this scenario, the atmosphere is warmed by conduction from the heated surface of the planet. A heat engine now begins to operate as some of the atmospheric warmth is transported to the poles. The net effect is that the near equator area is partially cooled by some process other than radiation. The poles are also warmed to some degree by their contact to a warmer atmosphere .
Consider that the S-B equation states that the amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. In our thought experiment, the radiation at the equator would decline by a 4th power function of the equilibrium temperature decrease due to the atmospheric transfer of heat. The amount of outgoing radiation from this particular part of the planet will drop substantially, based on how much the temperature can be reduced by conduction to the planetary atmosphere.
The bands from 30N-90N and 30S-90S could warm substantially while only moderately increasing their outgoing infrared radiation. It would therefore be possible for T2 (as the integral of the temperature) to be higher on this planet since these bands cover double the surface area. Average outgoing infrared radiation will exactly balance the incoming solar radiation. However, the distribution of the outgoing radiation will obviously be much different relative to the planet with no atmosphere.
The S-B equation assumes outgoing energy is uniformly radiated from the spherical body. This is certainly not the case for our thought experiment planets. The equatorial band will be the hottest part of the planet by far, and will radiate a massive portion of the energy budget. Any drop in temperature of the hottest portion of the planet due to atmospheric heat transport will make the equatorial band a much less efficient radiator of thermal energy due to the 4th power rule.
The “average” temperature of the planet with an atmosphere can now be higher, even with the exact same amount of outgoing infrared radiation.
Willis
Gravity + Solar energy can do constant work, the water cycle is a prime example. Atmospheric density plays an important part in the cycle. You can’t say that density is not important to temperature.
mothcatcher. Like any other problem in statics, movement stops when forces equal. Compression is “complete” when the pressure from the internal kinetic energy (the “temperature”) balances out the compression from gravity. Of course you have to look at each altitude separately, which is a basic calculus problem: the higher the altitude the less stuff is on top of each molecule and the lower the pressure. (Of course all bets are off it the air isn’t at thermal equilibrium and starts convecting!)
Willis i’m not understanding where the free energy comes from, if the gas when released is same temperature as before being compressed
A , You compress a gas and it warms, then cools via radiation or conduction.
That warming and cooling was a transfer of some of the gases energy to the outside environ from the gas inside the pressurised environment.
The temp of both environs is equal after cooling as per the gas bottles example is that right.
So the gas when released must be colder when released it doesnt contain the same amount of energy per molecule as it did before pressurisation.
Well thats how it comes over to me, but i’m asking, not telling as these things aren’t intuitive.
Or was the force required to compress the gas, as in mechanical energy transformed into the heat.
Gravity IS constantly working. And gravity as an attribute of every matter works as force only on cosmic/planetary scales so any comparison to an experiment with air in a bottle is by definition an unfitting allegory or even completely meaningless.
The dis-/approval of the NZ theorem can therefore only come from more data about rocky planets. So long I will enjoy my popcorn watching this debate.
Willis, you are usually pretty sharp, but you have completely missed the boat on this one. A column of gas in a gravitational field isolated from its environment is NOT isothermal. RGB’s counterexample is fundamentally flawed, so don’t try to rely on that. The basics are simple. Here they are:
Gas molecules in a column are moving. Any object that is moving up or down in a gravitational field is constantly trading off kinetic energy against potential energy. That includes molecules. Molecules high up in the column have a lot of potential energy, relative to the gravitational field, but they gain that at the expense of kinetic energy, like anything else. So molecules lower down have less potential energy, and more kinetic. The problem that I suspect you are running into is that you are confusing temperature with energy, but temperature doesn’t measure ALL energy – only the kinetic part. So the column is isoENERGETIC, yes, but not isoTHERMAL.
No laws of thermodynamics are being violated here, and no, you can’t turn such a column into a perpetual motion machine no matter how hard you try. And no, the result does not depend on work being done on the system such as in a bicycle pump. Also you will be badly confused if you try to rely on the Ideal Gas Law, because it doesn’t apply to real gases.
Note that gravity is not magically “heating up the system” or any such thing. It is merely applying a gradient of force, which results in moving molecules rearranging themselves according to their distribution of kinetic and potential energies, which changes as they move around and bounce off each other.
Please get this right, because you are confusing poor Anthony… and now he’s giving you credit for a wrong result. I am embarrassed for both of you.
You don’t have to believe me, just try the experiment. Apparently some Germans have done it, and verified the obvious result. Richard Feynman has also apparently explained this, probably better than I can, and doubtless more than once, but the physics are really not that hard.
Steve Keppel-Jones,
What you’ve shown is that an atmosphere with a pressure gradient can’t be isothermal, but you haven’t shown how it gets extra KE to raise surface temp above BB.
If only so much KE comes from surface conduction, then how do we get extra?
Don132
Don, as best I can tell, there is no “extra”. PE and KE are distributed throughout the atmospheric column, in what would be a smooth gradient if there were no other factors, and therefore somewhere in the middle is the average – which has to be the BB temperature in order to maintain radiative equilibrium (more or less). It would be very surprising if the average were to be found either at the top or the bottom.
Of course I am not trying to say that there is no surface warming effect from radiant greenhouse gases, or surface conduction, tidal compression, etc., so that changes things up a bit in the real atmosphere. But I suspect not by more than a few degrees. And radiant gases have cooling effects higher in the atmosphere too, so the whole thing is quite complex.
(I haven’t tried to calculate the relative contribution ratio of atmospheric pressure vs. radiant heating on the surface temperature, I’ll leave that to more dedicated and capable individuals such as N&Z. But it definitely isn’t either 0 or 1. I would suspect upwards of 0.8 in favour of atmospheric pressure.)
Steve Keppel-Jones:
“PE and KE are distributed throughout the atmospheric column, in what would be a smooth gradient if there were no other factors, and therefore somewhere in the middle is the average – which has to be the BB temperature in order to maintain radiative equilibrium (more or less).”
In a GHG-free atmosphere only the surface is radiating.
In a GHG-free atmosphere, the molecules can’t absorb any radiation from the surface; they can only conduct with the surface, and there’s a net KE that can be conducted. Molecules go up, become PE, come down, become KE. Surface radiates at BB temp, and molecules at the surface have the KE that reflect that BB temp. The surface can’t conduct more KE than is present at the surface. The lapse rate then goes from surface to tropopause. I fail to see how the temperature at the surface can be anything more than the BB KE allows.
Don132
If the surface is at BB then there is no KE available to maintain convection. It has to be higher than BB and I’ve told you how it works.
“In a GHG-free atmosphere only the surface is radiating.”
Don, that’s not quite right, that atm. would radiate less of course but since the remaining atm. has mass, the GHG-free atm. radiates in addition to the surface.
@Trick
A GHG free atmosphere would radiate VERY little. Radiation by N2 & O2 in the IR is exceedingly low (as is IR absorption). N2 and O2 can radiate in the UV, but where on Earth is it sufficiently hot for that to occur?
N2 and O2 have mass Don, so they radiate at each temperature and at all frequencies since you can plug any temperature and any frequency into the ideal Planck formula and obtain a non-zero irradiance on the surface from such an atmosphere.
Mass does not permit IR radiation. Gases like N2 and O2 are permitted to radiate ONLY in permitted quantum energy jumps of the involved bond. Because N2 and O2 have quite strong bonds, these quantum jumps, which release or absorb energy, occur in the UV, not IR
Stephen:
“If the surface is at BB then there is no KE available to maintain convection. It has to be higher than BB and I’ve told you how it works.” But here you don’t re-state what you say and force me to look for it. So, here it is:
“The energy initially required to provide the PE in the atmosphere is drawn from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space.” Again, I think you mean KE, even though the PE comes from a molecule lower down losing KE.
So the energy (the extra KE you need) is from radiation? Even in a GHG-free atmosphere? How does that work?
Is everyone agreed on the issue that a radiating molecule loses kinetic energy? Because I’m confused on that point. Can radiation and conduction happen at the same time? I’ve always thought they could.
Don132
Don,
The KE one needs is from conduction.
Radiation and conduction can occur at the same time but the same unit of KE cannot be simultaneously radiated and conducted.
So, a surface at 288k can radiate 255k to space with the other 33k being conducted.
“Gases like N2 and O2 are permitted to radiate ONLY in permitted quantum energy jumps of the involved bond.”
No, when that photon is emitted, the molecule is moving thus a doppler shift in the frequency away from the line occurs, this is what is known as doppler line broadening in a gas. There are also other independant broadening processes for which the observed irradiance of any gas specie spectra is smoothed like that from a solid, these were discovered by experiment and subsequently explained. Better more sensitive photon detectors like CCDs have been developed since the originals were done on less sensitive photographic plates with long exposure times.
Stephen:
“The energy initially required to provide the PE in the atmosphere is drawn from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space.”
So how does that work, such that we end up with the extra KE needed for thermal enhancement? Initially, that is: how do we initially get the extra KE? I don’t care about atmospheric circulation at this point.
Just the bare-bones statement of where the extra KE comes from, in the most concise and precise way you can state it.
Don132
Atmospheric circulation is the cause so I can’t exclude it. It is perfectly clear in my original narrative.
A discrete zero sum circulation requires a kinetic energy store at the base to maintain it. Zero sum does not mean zero energy.
“Atmospheric circulation is the cause so I can’t exclude it. It is perfectly clear in my original narrative.
A discrete zero sum circulation requires a kinetic energy store at the base to maintain it. Zero sum does not mean zero energy.”
I don’t mean to be stubborn but OK, atmospheric circulation is important. What I want to know is where the extra KE comes from for surface thermal enhancement.
Sorry to be dense. It’s got to be crystal-clear for me. So please just state the mechanism for the extra boost of KE that raises temp above BB. I’m just not understanding the mechanism. If you’ve already stated it, can you please show me exactly where? In your original narrative, for example? I don’t have much time to spend on this so right now I can’t afford to go searching for it, even in the narrative; please post excerpt or exact link to location, or tell me which paragraph, etc.
Don132
Last try, because I have better things to do and we are in the company of trolls.
It comes from the recirculating atmosphere.
Once the circulation completes the first ‘tour’ it feeds on itself because what goes around comes around in a zero sum loop.
Meanwhile the sunlight continues at full strength so that gives you minimum surface temperature of 255k
Additionally , you have 33k going up at the same rate as 33k is coming down so there is a constant extra 33k at the surface all the time.
If you don’t get it now, I give up.
Stephen: “What matters is that there is a temperature difference between the S-B prediction and the reality.
It is downward radiation or it is KE released from descending mass.”
Net KE released from descending mass is the same as net KE at the surface. How do you get KE enhancement?
“If radiative energy leaves a molecule it cools down and radiates less UNLESS the lost energy is replaced, as it is, by fresh insolation.” How does that affect anything in a non-GHG atmosphere?
I understand pressure and the lapse rate. I don’t understand how you get KE beyond BB kinetic energy in a non-GHG atmosphere.
“The energy initially required to provide the PE in the atmosphere is drawn from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space.” What energy initially required? To lift the atmosphere? How is that energy acquired in a non-GHG atmosphere? Does the surface stop radiating temporarily and devote energy to KE? Why? How? What mechanism forces the surface to stop radiating so much to increase KE, if that’s what you’re claiming?
If you can’t explain it clearly and distinctly then there’s a problem somewhere. Your central problem is the acquisition of extra KE, and you say that no one understands except those who “get it.” You should be able to state how simply and clearly without referring us to things we might not have to look up and read; you should be able to state it in a sentence or two.
“Thus you get the full effect from continuing insolation PLUS the extra energy at the surface needed to keep convection running.” What extra energy, once circulation is in place?
“I can now more precisely describe the role of pressure.
A non radiative cloud of gas outside a gravity field will be almost all potential energy beimg at the temperature of space.
Applying pressure forces molecules closer together thereby converting PE to KE and the temperature rises.
Wrap it around a rocky planet using the force of gravity and the density gradient sorts the molecules so that they are closest together at the base.
Pressure at the base squeezes KE out of PE to generate heat.
The more pressure, the more KE can be derived from the gas at the surface.
The density gradient then determines the angle of the lapse rate slope and the lapse rate slope inevitably induces convection which prevents the KE at the bottom from dissipating by constantly renewing in a recycling process.”
None of that explains how you get the extra KE.
Don132
Don, it does get more complicated when you add incoming radiation to heat the surface, and therefore convection to produce a convective (not just molecular-kinetic) lapse rate, but still leave out the greenhouse gases. That’s not Earth, of course, nor my isolated column of gas, so I’ll defer to Stephen Wilde on that scenario. On that planet, maybe the BB temperature would be at the surface? But still warmer than the BB temperature of a planet with no atmosphere, because the kinetic energy required to keep the atmosphere from condensing has to be balanced by a higher surface temperature? I think that’s what Stephen W is saying. In any case, my explanation was only to point out the error of Willis’s statement, namely that an isolated column of gas in a gravitational field must be isothermic. I did not include incoming or outgoing radiation (or convection) to make my point, because those are more complex, and not necessary for the specific explanation I was making. But until he gets over that, he will never understand Earth’s atmosphere properly…
Wouldn’t be Mr Roderich Graeff by any chance?
A C Osborn, if you are referring to my reference to “RGB”, that is Robert G Brown, physics professor at Duke. He tried to make a counterexample to the statement that an isolated column of gas in a gravitational field cannot be isothermal, but his counterexample is full of holes. Willis does not do himself any favours by trying to rely on it.
No, it was the Gas Column work in Germany.
Oh right, thanks for that tip, A C. It’s hard to argue with experimental results, but that doesn’t stop people from trying, apparently!
Steve Keppel-Jones:
Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown did not forget that kinetic energy converts to potential energy with altitude. Instead, they remembered that lower-velocity molecules are culled from the gas as it ascends, so the temperature remains the same. The Coombes & Laue paper I cited nearby explains that; here’s a summary.
Suppose that at some altitude
the number 
of upward-traveling molecules per joule per meter whose vertical component of translational kinetic energy is 
is distributed in accordance with
where
is a constant inversely proportional to temperature. The molecules for which 
at altitude 
will have 
at 
, so the distribution 
at 
is shifted from 
:
which means:
or
where
That is, the molecular density is lower at the higher altitude. But, although the molecule densities are different, the energy probability distributions are the same at both altitudes. Specifically, there are
molecules per meter at 
and 
molecules per meter at 
, and if we divide those values into the respective distributions above we get the same energy probability distribution 
for both: the temperature is the same.
So Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown are basically correct about isothermality in an equilibrium gas column subject to a uniform gravitational field. I disagree with them only in the theoretical detail that, strictly speaking, the kinetic-energy distribution is only approximately exponential. But the approximation is so good that there’s no practical situation in which that theoretical detail makes a difference.
It is NOT basically correct for isothermality in a perfectly isolated gas column subject to a uniform gravitational field at thermodynamic equilibrium. That max. entropy solution is the Poisson T(p) non-isothermal as the isothermal solution T(z) = constant has been shown to have less entropy therefore not yet at thermodynamic equilibrium (heat death).
Dr. Brown, as I recall, drew a wall of insulation around his column but treated it as an isolated column mathematically for a confusing story.
Trick:
I don’t think we can meaningfully discuss this.
I don’t see how your conclusion that “It is NOT basically correct for isothermality in a perfectly isolated gas column subject to a uniform gravitational field at thermodynamic equilibrium” follows from the other things you say. (Yes, if it would be compelling that entropy is maximized for some other configuration, but your just saying it doesn’t make it so.)
And you apparently were unable to follow my math.
So little purpose will be served by pursuing this further.
Joe 7:26am, f it is of interest to you to pursue, my prose follows the entropy maximization math in a beginner’s text Bohren 1998 sec. 4.4
“Molecules high up in the column have a lot of potential energy, relative to the gravitational field, but they gain that at the expense of kinetic energy, like anything else.”
You seem to assume that the molecule expended its own kinetic energy to get up there. More likely it was pushed up there and still has its kinetic energy (heat). Whatever pushed it gave up some energy and didn’t move up the column.
The result is fewer molecules up high, but some of them will be energetic. This can produce an interesting effect such as the “thermosphere”, very high temperature at high altitude where molecules cannot give up their energy by radiation nor by collision; so they stay “hot”.
An atmosphere of, say, nitrogen might be very hot at all altitudes, heated by ground contact but cooled by nothing. Methane, ozone and carbon dioxide cool the top of atmosphere while helping accumulate heat near the surface.
Michael 2, I’m not assuming anything. A single molecule could expend its own energy to gain altitude, yes, but in a gas consisting of many molecules, each one is bumping into others (and the wall of a container, if they are contained) all the time. In each collision, the total energy is conserved. So whenever any molecule is moving upward, it is exchanging kinetic energy for potential energy, and vice versa. Whether it is the same molecule that goes all the way from the bottom of a column to the top or not, is irrelevant – as long as energy is conserved at each collision.
The fallacy is to consider pressure to be the independent variable. The physical reality is that temperature drives volitilization and thus the amount of atmosphere. The anount of atmosphere (moles n in PV=nRT) determines pressure.
Most gases heat when compressed. This is due to conservation of energy. The work put into the system cannot disappear. The static atmosphere is not doing work. Its primary source of energy is heat from the sun. Without that, the atmosphere would condense out and pressure would drop.
If you take a specific volume of gas and compress it, what you say is true… then temperature will rise. But for the global atmosphere, any air sinking and compressing (and warming) is exactly matched by an equal amount of rising air at the same altitude that is doing the opposite. There is no net temperature change.
There is no net temperature change.
==========
Exactly. The average temperature remains unchanged. However, so long as there is adiabatic vertical circulation, the gas will be cooler at the top and warmer at the bottom.
The vertical circulation is a result of uneven heating by the sun as the earth rotates and orbits.
Sort of like an enormous sterling engine that cycles every 24 hours. The sun turns the shaft on the engine. One side of the engine will get hot and the other side will get cold, while the average remains unchanged.
The hot side is the surface and the cold side is the upper troposphere, and the work to turn the engine is provided by the sun.
OK, maybe I’m being picky …
If we have convection, we’re moving heat upward in the atmosphere. If we didn’t have convection, more heat would be retained at the surface. I would say that convection results in cooling.
commieBob December 31, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Bob, you’re forgetting that what goes up must come down. For every parcel of air moving upwards and cooling, another equal parcel is moving downwards and warming … net result?
No change.
w.
Unless the environment that the air convects into is colder than the rising air, in which case the rising air parcels warm the upper atmosphere by conduction.
This happens all day long in summer, as rising parcels of air warmed by contact with the surface rise and condense into clouds, in this case fair weather cumulus clouds, which then evaporate.
As the rising parcels warm the layers above and thus cool down, they descend back to the surface.
So over the course of the day the heat from the surface is distributed to altitude.
If these parcels did not transfer heat while they were aloft, they would be unable to descend back to where they started.
What you’re saying is true if, and only if, the only heating and cooling are due to the ideal gas law.
At the bottom, the atmosphere gains heat from the surface and loses heat to outer space due to radiation at the top.
That’s the simple version. Here’s a more complete version. The moisture content of the air adds a tiny bit to the complexity of the problem … LOL.
And in fact that the environment the rising parcel is ascending into is cooler than the rising parcel is a precondition for it to rise at all.
If it is not cooler, the parcel will not, and cannot rise (except to the extent that a rising parcel may acquire a certain amount of momentum and overshoot the level at which it is the same temp in the environment) to begin with. How high it rises is thus a function of how rapidly the atmosphere is cooling with height…unstable air is air that has an ELR greater that the dry adiabatic rate and the moist adiabatic rate…this the rising parcel will keep rising even after it condenses into a cloud. It gets complicated though, because if the air aloft is very dry, the cloud will evaporate…
You will not get vertical convection currents if the rising air is not shedding heat in it’s journey.
The lapse rate of the atmosphere is due to adiabatic expansion of rising warm air.
Hint: adiabatic-In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or mass of substances between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings. In an adiabatic process, energy is transferred to the surroundings only as work.
Commie Bob, yes, it is a simplified version for sure.
For the whole story, take a bunch of college level physical geography and meteorology classes.
Or do lots and lots of reading.
“The lapse rate of the atmosphere is due to adiabatic expansion of rising warm air.”
Incorrect.
Numerous factor influence the environmental lapse rate.
It exists even where no air is rising or has risen.
For a simple example, in Antarctica in Winter, under a dome of high pressure, the air is descending and warming, creating a certain lapse rate. The air also contains radiative gasses, causing it to cool, which obviously is a further influence.
Air descending on the lee side of a mountain range is heating from compression, and may also be warmed by contact with the ground surface, or cooled. Rain falling as verge may cool a part of the atmosphere, but not some other part below the point it has all evaporated.
Etc.
like rhe atmosphere, a sterling engine has no net movement of gas, yet one side gets warm and the other gets cold.
What is important is the relative phase angle between the parcels of air moving up and down.
The phase angle allows you to determine which side of the engine gets hot and which gets hot.
Only if the phase angle is 180 degrees is the engine isothermal.
Not during the formation of the atmosphere. See my reply to Roy above
“For every parcel of air moving upwards and cooling, another equal parcel is moving downwards and warming … net result? No chance.”
This is at equilibrium in the heat engine that Ferdberple describes. So Willis is correct: there is no overall change. But that fact is not significant, neither for NZ theory nor for the radiative greenhouse theory.
Don132
Some folks think the greenhouse effect is due to adiabatic heating. As Roy points out, that’s bogus. My quibble is not that Roy was wrong, per se. It’s just that convection is almost never an adiabatic process. Energy is almost always added and lost.
Willis, on the other hand was wrong because, I think, he missed my point.
” For every parcel of air moving upwards and cooling, another equal parcel is moving downwards and warming … net result?”
Oh dear, someone’s never heard of/understood entropy!
Roy,
There is a net temperature change during the formation of an atmosphere suspended off the surface.
What do you think happens to the energy required to enable ongoing convective overturning?
If it were ever radiated to space then the atmosphere would fall back to the surface.
Roy,
OK, now let’s substitute a totally non-GHG atmosphere (maybe pure nitrogen?) to 1 bar surface pressure.
Where is the surface from which the SB calculation is to be performed?
Is there no thermal conduction or convection and zero lapse rate?
Regards, just asking.
Roy,
I should add that I totally agree that there is a GHG effect but that there is a lot of other stuff going on that makes its net contribution very uncertain. I suspect that apparently big negative feedbacks such as evapotranspiration are not adequately studied while everyone hyperventilates over radiative effects.
I admire your work
“But for the global atmosphere, any air sinking and compressing (and warming) is exactly matched by an equal amount of rising air at the same altitude that is doing the opposite.”
It may not rise and fall at the same latitude. Think Hadley Cell, it’s drier when it falls too.
“If you take a specific volume of gas and compress it, what you say is true… then temperature will rise. But for the global atmosphere, any air sinking and compressing (and warming) is exactly matched by an equal amount of rising air at the same altitude that is doing the opposite. There is no net temperature change.”
.
No, wrong.
Temperature in a gas is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas.
A temperature gradient/enhancement is set up in all convecting atmospheres (those >10kPa), including Earth’s.
This is because when a gas parcel expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops. However, when a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up.
Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
There is no ‘greenhouse effect’ because there are no ‘special’ gases which can cause it.
Read my paper and learn something;
Holmes, R. I. (2018). Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change. Earth, 7(3), 107-123.
That paper at
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20180703.13
is packed with references indeed.
Maybe totally off topic question : What would happen to a sufficiently dense gas giant or “brown dwarf” with an intense radiative pulse ( such as a nearby supernova , GRB or large flare)? Enhanced heating would then not depend on molecular particulars. I wonder if this pressure enhanced heating is actually used today in thermonuclear fusion design?
It seems N-Z say gas giants are to be handled differently.
Marcus
You have it exactly backwards! As a parcel of air is lifted orographically, it expands and cools, often producing precipitation. As the parcel of air descends on the other side of the mountain range it is compressed and heats. That’s what gives places like Death Valley their extraordinary Summer temperatures. But, radiative cooling at night allows the heated air to cool down.
If there are no clouds.
Backwards. Compress a gas and it concentrates its energy in a smaller volume, heating up proportionately. However, it then cools off to the ambient temperature outside the compressed chamber. Release a gas from a pressurized tank and it gets frost around the exit. It, too, then warms up to match the ambient temperature.
Some years ago the relief valve on a large Nitrogen tank (3500psi) outside my lab burst. For a short while there was a supersonic jet of nitrogen emerging, so cold that it was condensing as liquid N2, quite impressive! Freaked out the emergency staff who turned up, had to restrain them from evacuating the whole area. Had to author a report though and come up with a design modification to the relief valve.
Marcus, same amount of molecules and same amount of internal energy, Q, in a smaller volume means that the temp rises.
This can be observed during any compression process in air, or any other gas.
Are Santa Ana winds cold? They are compressional winds.
Does air get colder when it rises? Yes, because it is under less pressure, i.e. same amount of Q in a larger volume = lower temp.
This can also be observed when you spray something out of an aerosol can.
Do you have a can of compressed air for cleaning your computer?
You have it backwards.
Hilarious comment here :
http://notrickszone.com/2018/09/24/climate-scientist-karl-zeller-sums-up-the-discovery-that-pressure-not-co2-determines-planets-temps/
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez
For the humor challenged try spelling their names backwards!
LOL!
Here we go again!
I love this stuff because it makes me think things through. Willis may be right, and I’ll honestly give him and Spencer and everyone else credit. But … I think N-Z are correct. I don’t have time now right but look forward to responses! I’ll participate as time allows.
But let’s just keep this a fun back-and-forth. It’s different paradigms, that’s all, and maybe some people are confused. Maybe I’m the confused one; it wouldn’t be the first time.
As to Anthony’s objections to N-Z, number two can be remedied if people tread a little lightly and remember than it’s not personal. Avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to the facts. Regarding number three, I think that the “fake names” issue is a non-issue, as the names were so obviously fake, and so obviously really Nikolov and Zeller (spelled backwards! hello?) that it’s also obvious that they did it to prove a point: they couldn’t get published as Nikolov and Zeller.
But to start, I’ll venture to say that the N-Z theory does NOT depend on compressional heating by the atmosphere. That’s a major misinterpretation. There is no compressional heating by the atmosphere, and N-Z never claim there is. Yes, gravity matters, but…. So right off the bat I’m sticking my neck out on the chopping block– all in good fun!
It’s really a beautiful and elegant theory, but I think people are so used to looking through a certain paradigm that they can’t see it.
Don132
Don, that’s par for the course of those who are left brain dominant; they get fixated on certain beliefs they think are unchallengeable because it’s all they know. They aren’t known for creativity or not conventional thinking because they have no balance between logic and emotion, which is necessary when attempting to progress in life.
It’s not an attack either, it’s just how different people operate. The modern left is stuck in right brain la la Land with no attempt to employ logic. It should be obvious to any outside observer who is balanced how these polar types aren’t much different, just in approach
“The modern left is stuck in right brain la la Land with no attempt to employ logic.”
Matthew,
Are you suggesting that political tendency is a product of which side of the brain is dominant? That doesn’t seem to be a logical idea. Left- vs. right-hemispheric dominance and the association with specific traits is largely a myth, though there are some tendencies, particularly in language.
Attempting to employ logic is not a product or determinant of political ideology. It’s the premises that differ.
(Interestingly, there’s evidence of a substantial genetic component of political leaning – but that doesn’t mean it’s immutable, of course.)
I’ve never understood why people can’t accept that the answer could be: “All of the Above”, not a few personally preferred combinations..The perplexity of the atmosphere is most likely beyond our ability to understand at the moment, so i accept most concepts as “possible”, Vuk’s hypothesis being the most valid.
Only time will tell. As a Canadian/American stuck in Canada, I hope it doesn’t colder…
ok, rant done. lol
Thanks Marcus, such a fate deserves a most sincere ‘Happy New Year Greetings’ from me to you. I’ve got some close Canadian relatives, every winter they migrate to Florida for 4-6 weeks, often longer. My younger daughter exactly a year ago left balmy London, UK, to spend two weeks just outside Canadian Arctic circle. Even London so called winter I often find on depressing side, so I migrate to sunny Mediterranean for 2-3 weeks at the time.
There was that movie series where the immortals with swords were running about throughout history trying to cut off each others’ heads…. “There can be only one!”
I kinda liked the movie series, but I never understood why “there could be only one”. At times there were immortals hanging out together, having a good time, not cutting each others’ heads off. Didn’t make sense. In the beginning there were scores of them (immortals), sometimes interacting, and sometimes not.
Seemed like in the end there could have been two, or three, or even more very important immortals. They could have gotten along; maybe one of them being more important or successful than the others, but still accepting of the comradery & interaction of the others.
Seems that the only real trouble was the one stubborn outspoken jackass, waving his sword around shouting “there can be only one!!!”. Sometimes the jackass didn’t even seem to care if he was the only one … he was just want to cause trouble by demanding that “there could be only one”. And this jackass demanded so much attention with his arrogance and attitude that the good part of the show was overwhelmed by his nuisance.
Anyway, allowing for more than one seems like it would have been a much better story line.
“Mom!”
https://youtu.be/8FurnHg4by8
But you gotta admit, when he used safety pins to glue his neck back together…that was cinema gold, baby!
There could be only one in order to achieve the goal of enlightenment, or whatever it was. The one left could see everything, hear everything, hear thoughts of everyone, that sort of nonsense.
Is the Eschenbach “proof” formulated in an equation(s)? I’m having difficulty understanding the exact meaning of the words used for this simple proof.
R, someone up above stated it quite clearly.
I hope that clarifies it. The only equation involved is the Stefan Boltzmann equation that relates thermal radiation and temperature. It says that when temperature increases, thermal radiation must also increase.
w.
Wrong. The added atmosphere will cool the surface by conduction and resulting convection will lead to winds carrying the heat to the poles where the atmosphere will heat the surface in return and the heat will radiate away.
Sounds good. I think people are looking for proof of how N-Z must be wrong instead of looking carefully at what they’re saying.
Don132
Temperature in a gas is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a volume of the gas If the pressure is increased the number of molecules increase (Avogadro’s hypothesis/law). If the kinetic energy of the molecules remains the same then the temperature of that volume of gas has increased as the number of molecules has increased. This is the basis of The Gas Laws.
The Willis approach appears to be a denial of the adiabatic lapse rates. These are the rates at which heat content is lost/gained due to the atmospheric level/pressure.
As these lapse rates are well established this seems a rather strange position to take. Yes convection occurs when gases are warmer (less dense due to kinetic energy and speed of molecules) or colder (more dense due to reduced kinetic energy/speed of molecules).
Given a heat source – whatever that is conduction from the surface or infrared absorption, the kinetic energy increases and the gas expands and convection raises the volume of air to a level where the adiabatic heat/volume is balanced.
I have yet to see an experimental proof of infrared heating a water surface – it always results in increased evaporation and evaporative -latent- heat loss same with warm air over a water surface (it is why you blow on hot drinks/food). 70% of the Earth’s Surface is water another 20% is covered with transpiring vegetation. These surfaces will cool when exposed to infrared or breezes and the heat is removed as latent heat not sensible heat.
So by all means assume that a bare rocky earth – about 15% of the surface, will warm but you cannot take S/B as a case for a water or vegetation covered surface.
Yet the same Willis Eisenbach has many posts on here showing how the hydrologic cycle cools the surface – while at the same time claiming that it warms ???
This is a very simple subject for experimentation – but nobody is doing it. This lack of simple experimentation implies that the answer is known but unwelcome.
“If the planet without an atmosphere has temperature T1 and you were to magically add an atmosphere, let’s say with no GHGs that cannot radiate at all in IR wavelengths, according to the N-Z theory the temperature at the surface should rise to T2.
But if it does rise, surface radiation going out to space should increase, which would not be captured by the atmosphere; this would create a state of disequilibrium.”
But the idea is that the surface temperature rises because of a warmer lower atmosphere.
Willis If Thayer Watkins is correct with his finding that clouds are responsible for 85% of the GHG effect then I calculated that the maximum effect of CO2 would be 1.5%. That would leave water vapour for the other 13.5%. Nikolov’s theory could work on the grand scale and Watkins theory on the local scale. Those 2 combined would take care of your disequilbrium.
Ned Nikolov tends to forget about the local effects of clouds,water vapour and CO2. Once you calculate the maximum effect of CO2 on a local scale, that maximum is still the maximum everywhere else. If Thayer is correct about the 85% effect of clouds that would mean clouds and water vapour together account for 98.5% of the GHG effect on a local scale. With Ned’s grand scale theory there wouldnt be a disequilibrium when you combine it with the local effects . http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
Alan Tomalty January 1, 2019 at 8:53 pm
The greenhouse effect can be measured as the percentage of upwelling surface longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere.
CERES data shows that where there are no clouds, ~ 31% of upwelling LW radiation is absorbed. When we add in the clouds, ~ 38*% of upwelling LW is absorbed.
This means that clouds are responsible for 7 / 38 = 18% of the total absorption. So I would argue that whoever Thayer Watkins is, his finding that clouds are responsible for 85% of the GHG effect is not true.
Best regards,
w.
Comparing 31% of ‘X’ to 38% of ‘Y’ needs to include the values of ‘X’ & ‘Y’.
With clouds, the incoming radiation (‘Y’) is less; your simplification, in this case, does not appear to be invalid.
… incoming radiation (associated with ‘Y’) is less …
Willis I assume that you have read both of Ned’s papers. Do you agree with his finding that all calculations of an earth’s temperature without an atmosphere, are wrong because of Holder’s inequality?
Alan, Ned said:
===
“Due to Holder’s inequality, one CANNOT estimate the true MEAN temperature of a spherical body from the AVERAGE absorbed radiation by that body as currently attempted.”
===
I agree with that. However, I do not agree that “all calculations of an earth’s temperature without an atmosphere, are wrong because of Holder’s inequality”. For example, in my thought experiment with an even heating it can indeed be estimated.
All that Holder’s inequality tells us is that with a given energy input to a planet, if there is any variation in temperature, the average temperature will be lower than if the heating and cooling is evenly distributed.
Finally, there are many more roadblocks to estimating the blackbody or other temperature of some earth with changed conditions. See Dr. Brown’s post on the subject,
w.
If not compressional heating, how else would high pressure in a gas lead to higher temperature (in their view)?
Sun plus lapse rate.
lapse rate is not a physical process, it is just the empirically observed temperature gradient.
The lapse rate is a physical process observed in the troposhere and is described mathematically by gravity and height.
Atmospheric lapse rate is a well known physical process. It is analytically determined by the specific heat of the gas, and gravity. It is modified by phase change of water vapor from gas to ice or rain, which lowers it’s value from near 8 to about 6.5 degrees C per km. The process only requires a reasonably well mixing of the atmosphere (convection). It is due to the adiabatic compression of gas moving down, and expansion of gas rising. The process produces a temperature gradient, not a specific temperature level. The greenhouse effect require both a lapse rate and an optically absorbing atmosphere from either molecular absorption, or particles (dust, ice particles, or droplets).
There is something called the environmental lapse rate (ELR), which exists in the atmosphere and describes how much the air cools with height.
It varies, and this variance is the cause for much of the weather we get, but also a consequence of it.
Then there is the amount a parcel will cool if it is lifted into the atmosphere, whether by being forced to rise over a mountain, or by being heated above the temp of the air above it.
If the air above the heated parcel is warmer than the parcel, it cannot rise, and will just keep getting hotter, until it finally is able to rise due to being warmer.
When a parcel of unsaturated air rises, it cools at a certain rate called the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and if it is saturated, it cools at the moist adiabatic rate. The opposite occurs of the parcel descends.
Also, the rate is not constant, but depends on barometric pressure and temperature, and so the graph of the rate is actually a crosshatched plot of curved lines.
So, this misunderstanding you guys are having is because you are talking about or conflating two different concepts…the ELR, and the adiabatic lapse rates.
…talking about OR conflating…
Fixed … I hate typos.
w.
Temperature in a gas is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a volume of the gas If the pressure is increased the number of molecules increase (Avogadro’s hypothesis/law). If the kinetic energy of the molecules remains the same then the temperature of that volume of gas has increased as the number of molecules has increased. This is the basis of The Gas Laws.
The Willis approach appears to be a denial of the adiabatic lapse rates. These are the rates at which heat content is lost/gained due to the atmospheric level/pressure.
As these lapse rates are well established this seems a rather strange position to take. Yes convection occurs when gases are warmer (less dense due to kinetic energy and speed of molecules) or colder (more dense due to reduced kinetic energy/speed of molecules).
Given a heat source – whatever that is conduction from the surface or infrared absorption, the kinetic energy increases and the gas expands and convection raises the volume of air to a level where the adiabatic heat/volume is balanced.
I have yet to see an experimental proof of infrared heating a water surface – it always results in increased evaporation and evaporative -latent- heat loss same with warm air over a water surface (it is why you blow on hot drinks/food). 70% of the Earth’s Surface is water another 20% is covered with transpiring vegetation. These surfaces will cool when exposed to infrared or breezes and the heat is removed as latent heat not sensible heat.
So by all means assume that a bare rocky earth – about 15% of the surface, will warm but you cannot take S/B as a case for a water or vegetation covered surface.
Yet the same Willis Eisenbach has many posts on here showing how the hydrologic cycle cools the surface – while at the same time claiming that it warms ???
This is a very simple subject for experimentation – but nobody is doing it. This lack of simple experimentation implies that the answer is known but unwelcome.
Ian, Solar Radiation (short wave) heats up the oceans nicely, but the heat is released gradually primarily through evaporation.
That is the primary Green house affect in a nut shell.
Ian,
that’s fundamentally incorrect. The number of moles of gas does not change because you increase pressure. That would require a violation of the conservation of mass!
The ideal gas law PV=nRT requires that the volume must decrease if the pressure increases at the same temperature, or the temperature must rise for the pressure to increase at the same volume. For the most part, the number of moles of gas in the atmosphere is a constant. Water evaporated is about equal to water condensed. Net losses to space, outgassing from oceans and volcanoes notwithstanding, average atmospheric pressure is pretty constant.
I agree.
Ian, your explanation is a jumble of mixed up terminology and incorrect statements, such as this one:
“The Willis approach appears to be a denial of the adiabatic lapse rates. These are the rates at which heat content is lost/gained due to the atmospheric level/pressure.””
The definition of an adiabatic process is that no energy is lost of gained during the process.
It is impossible to tell if you simply explained what you meant incorrectly or if you misunderstand what you are talking about.
In scientific discussions, particularly those involving disagreements, terminology and using concise and correct language is vital.
Telling someone they are wrong and using an incorrect statement to do so does not get anyone anywhere.
That passage I quoted is as far as I got when I wrote this.
But even before that, it was hard to discern exactly what you were saying. I am trying to be descriptive and not judgmental, but when you say increasing the pressure increases the number of molecules, it is confusing. Typically such discussions are done using a fixed parcel of a gas. Greater density means that there are more molecules in a given volume…when all else is equal. But unless you say so, it is hard to determine exactly what you mean to say.
Just sayin’.
I agree.
While having a dense atmosphere does not make a planet warmer, it makes the surface warmer through lapse rate, all the heat that atmosphere absorbs is not evenly distributed, it is colder at the top and warmer at the bottom, the more atmosphere you have the more extreme it becomes.
I’ll expand EdB’s comment, a bit.
Venus takes 243 days to rotate. Making for a very long day.
Only Venus’s light/dark periods are 117 days long, since Venus rotates backwards causing the sun to appear to rise in the West and set in the East. Venus’s slow spin is complicated by Venus’s full rotation around the sun.
That is a long time to absorb a much stronger level of insolation.
ATK: Also a long night to lose it except that strong venu-strophic winds redistribute the solar energy evenly. All that CO2 should cause night freezes if it was so good, but no….. Brett
Roy, it is not that high pressure leads to high temperature, it’s that high pressure leads to increased molecular density. These dense molecules conduct/convect with the surface warmed by the sun. They necessarily hold the heat conducted from the surface close to the surface, as that’s where the vast majority of the atmospheric molecules are, which in the absence of GHGs could not radiate that heat away, and this fact would NOT violate any law of physics, and would not necessarily make the earth radiate more energy than it receives, as Willis seems to claim.
The dense atmosphere is warmed by the surface that’s warmed by the sun, and we could argue that without GHGs the atmosphere could not cool as effectively, which is maybe what Willis wanted to say. But, the atmosphere could cool through conduction with cooler molecules higher up or more toward the poles, or at nighttime with the cooling surface.
14.7 psi at the surface isn’t a trivial amount of pressure, and makes for a very dense surface atmosphere.
Why is the Grand Canyon warmer at the bottom? When cold air sinks?
Well, it is New Year’s Eve and that’s all I have time for!
Don132
The volume of the atmosphere is always changing. Right now the thermosphere is cooling, thus it is shrinking, assuming mass stays the same and pressure stays the same. PV =nRT where R is the ideal gas constant which itself = Boltzmann constant * Avogadro constant.
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
The Langley Space Research Centre did not receive Gavin Schmidt’s email to GET WITH THE PROGRAM. Folks This is going to destroy the CAGW meme quickly. In the link they go on to say
“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.”
THIS CANT GO WELL FOR AL GORE’S CHURCH OF CLIMATOLOGY. They measured the infrared glow of the molecules of CO2 and NO at the very top of the atmosphere.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
They developed a Thermosphere Climate Index
As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”
I tried to put the graph in this post but the png format didnt seem to work.
However if you look at the graph, they extended SABER’S 17 year data back to 1950 by using geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output which have been measured since 1950. This will not go well for Al Gore’s Church of Climatology and his main disciple Gavin Schmidt at GISS.
The graph shows an ice age type of pattern with the y axis being POWER 10^11 W. There is a total variation of 5x. The graph corresponds very well with the sunspot solar cycles.
FOLKS IT GETS EVEN BETTER
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/category/thermosphere/
We now have a US government agency that is tracking the solar minimums and maximums and showing actual data of Power being emitted to space. It seems that variation is so huge that Willis; it is the SUN after all. Prepare for much colder weather in next 5 years that will be colder than in the 70’s. I will accept cold weather if it destroys Al Gore’s Church of Climatology .
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I led you astray slightly. NASA seems to have decreed that they will not show the Thermosphere Climate Index. You can get it at the above link (go figure, a private site). It looks like the Langley Research Centre (LRC) in Virginia is also a Global Warming shop.
https://www.nasa.gov/langley/overview I predict that the internal program funding will cut for SABRE.. Trump needs to fire both Gavin Schmidt (GISS) and David Bowles (LRC)
“We are especially pleased that SABER is gathering information so important for tracking the effect of the Sun on our atmosphere,” says James Russell, SABER’s Principal Investigator at Hampton University. “A more than 16-year record of long-term changes in the thermal condition of the atmosphere more than 70 miles above the surface is something we did not expect for an instrument designed to last only 3-years in-orbit.”
So that explains what happened. When they originally planned this program whoever was in charge realized that this would destroy Al Gore’s Church of Climatology. So they only gave it a 3 year run which is ridiculous. Don’t forget that this machinery is piggybacking onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. However the machinery outperformed its wear date and lasted a full 16.5 years. Somehow whoever was in charge did not manage to sabotage its mission with a real best before date coding strike. So now we have another piece of the radiation puzzle which will this time rear its beautiful head and show us the reality of COLD climate like we had in the 70’s which of course will cause Al Gore’s Church of Climatology to crumble to dust like make up clouds. But this time it will be the SUN stupid.
Alan Tomalty January 1, 2019 at 10:46 pm
Alan, I’ve never denied that the sunspot-related solar variations affect the temperature of the thermosphere. However, it’s a temperature difference that makes no difference. Why? Because the thermosphere is so thin. How thin? So thin that there are so few electrons that it won’t carry sound. It’s so thin that it’s almost empty space. The Space Station travels through the thermosphere.
How much effect does it have on the surface? Well, the temperature of the thermosphere is on the order of 1000K, which is about 730°C, or 1,340°F … but there are so few atoms that if you could feel it, it would feel cold. For example, despite the 1,340°F temperature, the Space Station isn’t burning hot on the outside, it’s freezing cold …
So yes, the sun does change the temperature of the thermosphere … but as near as I can tell, that makes zero difference down here on the surface.
w.
However, it is one indicator that the sun must have some effect on the lower atmosphere if the total visible and IR radiation escaping to space from the thermopshere is 5 to 10 times smaller in a low sun spot cycle than a high one, Of course those calculations do not include the amount of xrays, Extreme UV, Far UV and near UV that is escaping. Those quantities may be higher which may balance out the visible and IR radiation. Nonetheless in general low sunspot activity is somewhat associated with cooler global temperatures perhaps with some type of lag mechanism. I believe that Willie Soon is working on this.
Please consider Roy, how energy flows down the gradient, up the Entropic, with deference to Equipartition.
If it is less expensive to use gaseous buoyancy differences and in our case WV LH transport, and that is so, then how can all this about radiant Flux (a VECTOR force), mean as much as claimed.
We know empirically that convection rules. We know that the gas laws Poisson Relationship means gas specie is inconsequential except for tiny mass effects. N and Z and others have come to this from several angles and the empirical solar system data make it as close as possible to incontrovertible. Radiative flux only rules above the c.0.1bar level, any world, any gas. Maxwell deduced this in the 1860s and he was a great experimentalist as well as theorist. Brett from the land of Rutherford and Popper…..
Brett It would help if you explained yourself in plain English scientific terms. Most of us havent got a clue of what you are saying.
Don – As I read it, Willis (as represented by Roy Spencer) doesn’t assume anything about N-Z, he simply shows that if the atmosphere does not interfere with radiation then the temperature can’t increase. Willis’ explanation is indeed elegant.
No, you ignored conduction, convection and thus cooling.
Infra red rad takes care of the cooling. The atmosphere without adsorptive- re-emittive gases are transparent to infra red going out (and shortwave coming in) If you assume an ocean, yeah huge convection because the much lighter water molecules evaporating from the water surface plus being heated transport huge volumes of heat upwards and “make” weather. With just a cold rock and, say, nitrogen “weather” isn’t much in evidence.
Conduction and convection transport energy. and then it stops if the transported energy is not removed (you can’t accumulate the energy, it would make the higher level hotter than below, and conduction and convection would reverse). Without radiation to space you can’t remove the solar energy.
Don
There is decompression in rising air and compression in descending air each of which comprise half the atmosphere at any given moment.
The extra surface heating develops during the initial formation of an atmosphere and convective overturning can never be prevented due to uneven surface heating.
As long as convective overturning continues the extra surface heating will be retained.
My description of the mechanics of the process is supplemental to the N-Z findings
You’re saying that there is a primordial reservoir of excess heat maintained in the atmosphere so long as the sun continues to supply energy to drive convection?
Berthold Klein and Konrad Hartmann are two who have shown that N and Z are right, by physical experiment. Nasa’s solar system atmospheric probe readings do too. Allmendinger and other gas engineers show that all gases do radiate in both Light and Raaman spectroscopics. Others just have not looked hard enough, taking’expert’s’ words for it. Nand Z are two of many, but blindness seems to prevail, and doubling down on failed hypotheses. Very Feinmannesque/Popperesque.
Weathermen shoud consider how much radiative theory figures in building the Standard Atmosphere. Or how little Hoyt and Hottel and all Process Engineers care for the magic powers of CO2.
Don, there were perfectly good reasons for their jape, mainly to do with the dishonesty of warmista including reviewers etc.. Ask Peter Ridd and so many other sceptics.The interesting thing is how Willis and Anthony jumped on it and took the warmista line, and harshly. Including being blind to real Physicists’ findings. Starting with Poisson and Maxwell also Wood. Not in a pleasant manner either. However I don’t give up on them so long as mutual human respect is shown all around, we will get there.
Which in Science is often someplace we never imagined – that’s the beauty of it. Brett
Actually, I did manage to rebut Willis’s alleged ‘proof’ at the time but just as I got to the point where he would have had to back down he went off at an irrelevant tangent and became somewhat shouty.
Since this has come up again I must address it again and as a starting point I refer to my description of the conductive / convective process involved here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
One can readily see that the excess surface heat cannot be radiated away to space so long as a conducting and convecting atmosphere is held off the surface in hydrostatic equilibrium since that excess is being constantly recycled in and out of potential energy (which is not heat and does not radiate) within ascending and descending columns of atmospheric gases.
The same parcel of energy in the form of surface heat cannot be in two places at once so energy that is being constantly recycled between KE and PE within convective overturning is simply not available for radiation to space.
It follows that due to the conversion of surface heat to potential energy aloft as air rises there can never be an isothermal atmosphere as Roy Spencer proposes and the inevitable existence of a lapse rate slope even in a completely non radiative atmosphere would be the necessary proof.
There is no breach of any law of thermodynamics in my description and it is fully compliant with the gas laws.
The problem with an upward facing IR thermometer is simply that it will measure a temperature at the height where atmospheric density triggers the sensor. Thus if pointed at a clear sky it will register a low temperature high up in the atmosphere but if clouds or particulates increase density so as to trigger the sensor at a lower height then it will register a warmer temperature. The reading provided by such a thermometer just shows the temperature of the point along the lapse rate slope where density triggers the sensor. That is therefore not a proof of downward radiation in place of compressional heating since it is consistent with both.
The reality is that downward radiation is neutralised by conduction and convection as it moves down along the lapse rate slope so that the surface effect at the surface becomes zero.
Stands back and waits for chaos to ensue 🙂
As a layman, I thoroughly enjoy reading the comments for exactly these comments mr. Wilde, as well as the debate that ensue
Thanks all for your input and effort. It helps me learn slowly the science I don’t understand.
You and me too. I love these threads. I read them and change my mind back and forth until I’m all messed up. Then I go to bed 🙂
I learn tons on sites like this. Sadly they are few and far between where real discussions can be carried on politely (for the most part).
I’m not seeing the logic in this.
If the planet without an atmosphere has T1 and you were to magically add an atmosphere, lets say with no GHGs that cannot radiate at all in IR wavelengths, according to the N-Z theory the temperature at the surface should rise to T2. But if it does rise, surface radiation going out to space should increase, which would not be captured by the atmosphere; this would create a state of disequilibrium.
You say “excess surface heat cannot be radiated away to space so long as a conducting and convecting atmosphere is held off the surface in hydrostatic equilibrium since that excess is being constantly recycled in and out of potential energy.” My recollection of heat transfer says that this is wrong. A body radiates only according to it’s present temperature. If its temperature goes up, it must radiate more; conduction and convection cannot stop a surface from emitting more radiation if its surface temperature rises.
Similarly, you cannot cause temperatures on a surface to rise at all if there is always a theoretical “hydrostatic equilibrium” between the surface and the atmosphere since the exchange of equal amounts of heat changes the temperature of neither body. Your “hydrostatic equilibrium” theory itself contradicts the N-Z theory.
Kurt,
Are you not suggesting that heat can be radiated away and conducted/convected away simultaneously?
You need the same parcel of energy to be in two places at once.
At hydrostatic equilibrium the net energy exchange is indeed zero but you need an injection of energy to get the atmosphere to hydrostatic equilibrium in the first place and that slug of energy is then recycled up and down indefinitely as long as the atmosphere remains in place. That slug of energy heats the surface but cannot radiate to space.
A body only radiates according to its temperature if in a vacuum i.e. no ongoing non radiative processes. The S-B equation refers to a vacuum.
Of course heat can be simultaneously conducted, convected, and radiated away. But radiation from a surface always increases when its temperature increases according to the fourth power of its temperature. What you are saying is that a surface can two different temperatures, radiating the same at each of those temperatures. That’s not possible.
You’re missing the entire thrust of Willis’ proof. You start with a planet having no atmosphere, and that planet is going to have an equilibrium temperature. Then ask yourself whether the addition of an atmosphere having no GHGs would increase that equilibrium temperature. Willis’ proof shows that it would not.
Your “slug of energy” explanation has no relation to how heat transfer and equilibrium actually work. Ask yourself where that slug of energy into the atmosphere comes from, and what happens to the body that sends that slug of energy into the atmosphere so it can heat itself to achieve equilibrium with the surface.
What would really happen if you add an atmosphere to an otherwise barren planet is that the surface, already in equilibrium with the incoming radiation from space would rapidly cool since it now can conduct and convect quite a bit of its incoming heat into the atmosphere. But once the surface reaches thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere as you envision it, the surface temperature has to have risen right back to the same temperature it was before the addition of the atmosphere, since its net exchange with the atmosphere is zero, and it is still getting the exact same amount of incoming radiation from the sun.
Willis does not show that the surface will be warmer. He ignores the surface heating the atmosphere through conduction thus cooling the surface below his SB temperature.
Kurt
Conduction and convection can of course occur at the same time as radiation but cannot both involve the same unit of surface energy. Once a unit is radiated away it is gone and cannot also be conducted.
You have to view the planet with an atmosphere from outside the atmosphere for S-B to apply. Viewed from space the planet drops below S-B whilst the atmosphere forms and returns to S-B when the atmosphere is in place but then has a surface above S-B. The excess above S-B is the greenhouse effect (non radiative, mass induced) and is constantly recycled up and down in ongoing convection.
Where else would you place the energy required for ongoing convective overturning?
“Viewed from space the planet drops below S-B whilst the atmosphere forms and returns to S-B when the atmosphere is in place but then has a surface above S-B. The excess above S-B is the greenhouse effect (non radiative, mass induced) and is constantly recycled up and down in ongoing convection.”
I’m trying to make some sense out of this, but I can’t. A temperature is not something that can be recycled, or moved around. Heat can; but if your theory is that there is some amount of stored atmospheric heat in constant transport up and down in the climate system that never gets a chance to be radiated by the surface, then I can just ignore it since it has no effect on the temporal equilibrium temperature of the surface, which receives a certain heat flux (Joules per second per square meter) and has to radiate a flux over that same time interval that sheds the energy it got. Whatever heat exchange you are contemplating between the surface and the atmosphere, in the absence of radiating greenhouse gasses, can only be a zero-sum game in the accounting that matters.
I think of the atmosphere, in the absence of GHGs, as largely just a buffer. It can temporarily let the surface of the earth maintain a lower temperature when the sun is blasting it during daytime by dumping heat into the buffer, and it can let the surface of the earth maintain a higher temperature during nighttime when the buffer dumps heat back to the surface while the surface radiates more to space than it gets from the stars. But the heat exchange in and out of the buffer does not affect the long-term throughput of the system.
Kurt:
You mistakenly assert,
“What would really happen if you add an atmosphere to an otherwise barren planet is that the surface, already in equilibrium with the incoming radiation from space would rapidly cool since it now can conduct and convect quite a bit of its incoming heat into the atmosphere. But once the surface reaches thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere as you envision it, the surface temperature has to have risen right back to the same temperature it was before the addition of the atmosphere, since its net exchange with the atmosphere is zero, and it is still getting the exact same amount of incoming radiation from the sun.”
Sorry, but that displays inadequate understanding. And such misunderstanding is common on all sides of this discussion. Decades ago Hans Jelbring tried to ‘cut through’ the misunderstandings but his attempt seems to have only encouraged people to entrench their views.
I explain as follows.
The “otherwise barren planet” does NOT have a single surface temperature for the same reason that the Moon does not have a single surface temperature; i.e. it obtains solar heating on its day side but not its night side while all its surface radiates energy to space.
If the length of each day on the “otherwise barren planet” equals one of its years then half its surface is solar heated and its other hemisphere is not. Both hemispheres radiate to space but the not-solar- heated region only obtains heat by conduction through the solid material of the planet. Also, the planet obtains most heat in its equatorial region and little heat at its poles. And provision of any difference between the length of its year and the length of its day provides varying solar heating to each region of the planet’s surface.
The S-B temperature of this planet is not a simple average of its surface temperatures. The S-B temperature is the effective temperature the planet would have if it were a grey body radiating an amount of energy equivalent to the solar energy the planet absorbs.
Any alteration to the system alters the greyness of the planet and, thus, the planet’s S-B temperature.
For example, change length of day of the “otherwise barren planet” and its actual surface temperatures all change. But radiative output is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. A reduction to e.g. its day surface temperature of say x produces a reduction of radiated output of say -y, but an increase to its night surface temperature of x provides an increase to its radiative output of LESS THAN +y (because the day surface has much higher temperature than the night surface and radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiating surface). This alters radiative equilibrium (i.e. the planet absorbs more heat than it radiates) so the planet’s S-B temperature rises until radiative equilibrium is re-established.
Similarly, add a GHG-free atmosphere and solar heat absorbed by the planet’s hot regions is conducted to the atmosphere then transported to cooler regions by convection where it heats the cooler regions. This, too, alters the planet’s S-B temperature.
Then add GHG’s to the atmosphere and the magnitude of both surface heating and heat distribution is altered some more. This also alters the planet’s S-B temperature.
PLEASE NOTE THAT NONE OF THIS REQUIRES ANY COMPRESSIVE HEATING.
However, Jelbring noticed something interesting.
He observed that the S-B temperature of the Earth and the S-B of each other observable planet with an atmosphere (except Mars that has small and variable temperature) fits an equation which relates the temperature to only the plant’s distance from the Sun and the surface density of its atmosphere.
Jelbring considered this observation to be a remarkable coincidence. So, he published a paper in which proposed that all radiative, conductive and convective effects may adjust in a planetary atmosphere as though they were determined by gravity.
This suggestion could have been expected to be seminal but it was not. This is sad because investigation of possible ways such a coincidence could occur may have revealed much whether or not the Jelbring conjecture is true. But, instead of such investigations, some people claimed that compressive heating could not determine temperature while others claimed that it does, and they argued to defend those positions.
Richard
PS Happy New Year to all.
CORRIGENDUM
Mars has small and variable ATMOSPHERE (not temperature).
Sorry, but my medication does not assist me avoiding mistakes.
Richard
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body.
Alan Tomalty:
Yes. You have restated my explanation but (I think) in a less clear manner and without explanation of why the procedure you suggest is required to determine S-B temperature from radiative fluxes.
Richard
But doesn’t the temperature have various points where it gets warmer as it goes up? If so how does kinetic energy turn to potential energy and then back into kinetic energy etc as it goes up?
It only turns back into kinetic energy when it descends.
Rising air will never heat back up simply due to rising further, unless something else is going on to add energy to it.
You have actual struck another hole in the proposal there is no green house effect, try and explain it 🙂
It is actually funny watching people use classical physics to try and solve this, try looking what happens when you fire a laser into space (search laser transmission thru atmosphere) it will help you a lot 🙂
“A body only radiates according to its temperature if in a vacuum”
That seems unlikely. Bodies do not know or care if they exist in a vacuum. Nothing about S-B requires a vacuum (but DOES require a blackbody; emissivity=1).
Michael 2 January 2, 2019 at 7:56 am
No, it does NOT require a blackbody. Emissivity (epsilon) can be any value because it is included in the S-B equation.
Regards,
w.
Any value between 0 and 1 including 1.
I sit corrected. As commonly used in global warming arguments seems to assume the existence of a blackbody (emissivity=1) and from that starting point emanates many arguments, some of which appear in the comments on this page.
At any rate, I observe no disagreement about the non-requirement of a vacuum. It was the first I’ve encountered that particular argument.
That’s odd because it appears that radiation is described as being at maximum efficiency in a vacuum.
That implies that it somehow becomes less efficient in a non vacuum.
Consider an extreme example of a group of molecules surrounded by solid material. In that case no radiation gets out and all energy transfer is via conduction.
That is germane to the density issue because one would assume that if the density of the surrounding material were to decline then radiation could escape and would start to increase relative to conduction.
It seems clear that matter placed in the path of radiative emissions leads to conduction which attenuates the radiative output. Of course conduction will only occur if the surrounding material is in contact with the source but that is the case for an atmosphere in contact with a surface.
So, the issue is whether non radiative gases in an atmosphere will attenuate the radiation from the surface below via conductive absorption rather than radiative absorption.
Read Ned Nikolov’s 1st paper where sprlled his name backwards.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
You have to get around Holder’s inequality when evaluating temperatures in a spherical globe.
conduction and convection cannot stop a surface from emitting more radiation if its surface temperature rises.
≠=========
Kinetic energy can be radiated but potential energy cannot. Convection converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again in sync with the rotation of the earth, which delays the radiation to space.
Fred – show that on a water surface where the increase in energy results in evaporative cooling of the surface as it loses latent heat of evaporation. Do remember that at least 70% of the surface of the Earth is water/transpiring plants.
Kurt December 31, 2018 at 11:05 am
Absolutely. You got it in one.
Stephen Wilde says that the heat is “conducted/convected away” … but “away” in this case means “to the atmosphere”, which makes no sense. You cannot continuously pump heat into the atmosphere. As soon as the atmosphere reaches the temperature of the surface, no more heat will flow into the atmosphere … so perforce it must radiate to space.
But as you say … “this would create a state of disequilibrium”, so it’s not possible.
Thanks,
w.
Willis,
So all your posts on hydrologic cooling of the Earth’s surface by thundershowers are incorrect?
Ian W December 31, 2018 at 1:40 pm
Say what? My thought experiment involves a blackbody planet with no GHGs, which includes water vapor.
Why would this have something to do with thunderstorm cooling the surface?
w.
You invent a virtual world unlike Earth then claim on the basis of that the atmosphere of Earth that is full of latent heat, must behave like your virtual world?
Your dry rock virtual world can be claimed to follow S/B – but a water world cannot. You have oversimplified your argument.
Ian, it’s called a “thought experiment”. Einstein was famous for using them. They are invaluable for understanding things when we cannot do real experiments.
Now, N&Z claim that their theory does NOT require GHGs to raise the temperature of the surface of a planet above the S-B temperature. My thought experiment proves that their claim is not possible. Without GHGs the only way for the planet to lose energy is radiation from the surface … and it cannot radiate more than it is receiving.
Does this apply to earth? Nope, nor was it intended to do so. It applies to the N&Z claim, and it shows that their claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. Q.E.D.
w.
Ian, I support your view. Fynman commented that if your guess does not conform to reality then it is wrong. W uses a non physical model. It is not real. Einstein started with a physically real thing, that the speed of light as measured in many experiments was constant. W is misrepresenting E’s model.
Would not a much more dense atmosphere have greater laten energy than a less dense atmosphere simply because of convection of heat from the surface?
It doesnt really matter whichever theory is correct because temperatures are determined locally via clouds,water vapour and non condensing GHGs. Sure there is some basic reason that raises the non atmosphere moon temperature from 197.3K to the earth temperature of 287.6K , but since in the end we are trying to rid this world of the CO2 scam, it is the effect of CO2 that we need to know.
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.
So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).
So all we have to do is calculate Twet.
Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.
Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C? This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 13.5 % and the effect of CO2 = 1.5%.
Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
G’ Day Kurt, there is no such thing as a gas that cannot radiate in the IR spectrum. All matter radiates Black Body radiation in accordance with SB’s law. I think you are proposing an atmosphere that does not absorb at any of the BB frequencies that the surface radiates. Cheers Bruiser
The SB equation does not describe gas emissions. They depend upon quantum mechanics and CO2 has multiple ways to absorb photons and emit them. Nitrogen by contrast is almost unable to absorb and radiate heat.
This appears a rather novel assertion. Are you suggesting that if we were able to measure the temperature of individual components of the atmosphere they would have different temperatures, such that, at any given altitude, nitrogen which has a different temperature to that of CO2?
If that were the case, we ought to be able to see great fluctuations in temperature as CO2 levels vary during the course of the day, or where CO2 is being out gased.
If nitrogen cannot be heated (according to you, it cannot absorb heat), how do you explain the following table which shows its conductivity at temperatures between -200 deg C to 1300 degC?
Richard, you’ve got to learn to read between the lines. He means NO2 is unable to absorb and radiate longwave thermal radiation. Nothing to do with conduction or convection.
w.
Well he should have said that then.
Bruiser December 31, 2018 at 1:29 pm
Bruiser, this is widely believed but is not true. All SOLIDS both absorb and emit blackbody (thermal) radiation, but not all gases. That’s why we divide them into greenhouse gases (CH4, CO2, H2O, etc) and non-greenhouse gases.
To absorb the thermal radiation energy, it must be converted into mechanical motion within the molecule. It does this by stretching or flexing or scissoring the atomic bonds that hold the atoms of the molecule together.
But monatomic gases like argon, neon, zenon, and the like do not have atomic bonds, so there is no way for them to either absorb or radiate thermal energy.
Regards,
w.
Willis you add an atmosphere to a planet, that atmosphere is going to absorb heat, the same amount as the planet, the bigger the mass of atmosphere the bigger the heat, so the temperature should stay the same and it does, But not evenly, this is where lapse rate screws everything up.
The t1 t2 is not changed overall but it is changed at the bottom of the atmosphere,
Even Loschmidt or Boltzmann/Maxwell could not agree on lapse rate, I favor Loschmidt.
Why “thermal radiation energy”. It is all just electromagnetic radiation, from near infinite wave length to near infinite frequency, is it not? Other than the particular absorption./emission spectrum of any particular substance there isn’t any difference in the radiation beyond frequency and amplitude, is there?
There is a device whose name I unfortunately can’t recall at the moment. I think it is something different than a plasma torch. Some particular radio frequency EM is transmitted via an appropriately designed antenna into a stream of gas. Electrons in the gas atoms are raised to a higher quantum level. Passing out of the transmission field, the electrons fall back down to their ground state, releasing the energy they absorbed. Extremely high temperatures can be achieved. Does this only work with non-monatomic gases?
AndyHce January 1, 2019 at 1:24 am
Andy, the term “thermal radiation” is a generally used synonym for “longwave radiation”. It specifically refers to the radiation from things at earthlike temperatures.
w.
And my understanding is that even even diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 radiate at much higher temperatures than IR. So in order for any other gasses than GHGs like CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. in the atmosphere to radiate to space, the atmophere’s temperature would first have to rise to temperatures so high that the atmosphere wouldn’t be able to absorb enough energy from the surface to sustain such temperatures.
The satellite temperatures measures are of microwave emitted by O2 and that is mainly at a much lower temperature than the earth’s surface
Stephen, winter temperature inversion falsifies the theory. The atmosphere cools from the bottom up, akso neasured in daily observations during the Koorin expedition
Clarke, R. H.; Brook, R. R. The Koorin Expedition: atmospheric boundary layer data over tropical savanna land. In: Canberra: Department of Science and the Environment; 1979.
Hans,
That is a local short term exception, not a falsification. It is the ground that cools faster than warmth from compression can be supplied from above, indeed the inversion blocks the descent from above. In due course an inversion always dissipates.
Stephen Wilde December 31, 2018 at 10:22 am
Without a link to back up your nonsense that’s just an ad hominem attack. So let’s set that aside and take a look at your current argument. You say:
I don’t understand this. Let me restate the experimental situation. We have a blackbody planet with an atmosphere which does NOT absorb or emit thermal radiation. Argon will do nicely. The surface is evenly heated from all sides by thousands of suns. It gets up the to Stefan-Boltzmann corresponding temperature, where it radiates exactly as much energy as it receives.
In this system, the surface radiation is the only way that the planet can lose heat to space—the atmosphere cannot radiate.
Now IF by some unknown method the surface is heated above the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature, perhaps involving “a conducting and convecting atmosphere which is held off the surface in hydrostatic equilibrium since that excess is being constantly recycled in and out of potential energy”, or perhaps by some other method, then again by Stefan-Boltzmann, the surface perforce will be radiating more energy. It has to radiate more because it is warmer and there is no place else for the excess heat to go.
But if that is the case, then the surface is radiating more energy than it is receiving … which is a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamic.
As a result, Stephen, it doesn’t matter what your explanation is of how the surface might be warmed. If the atmosphere doesn’t contain greenhouse gases, then if the surface is warmed by whatever atmospheric or pressure-based means, it will have to radiate more energy than it is receiving and that can’t happen.
Best of the New Year to you,
w.
PS—a comment to you from my original post containing my proof, from Dr. Robert Brown, a brilliant guy who actually teaches this stuff at the college level:
Robert Brown January 15, 2012 at 8:51 am
What he said …
A body heated on all sides by thousands of suns will heat up until it reaches the temperature of those thousands is suns.
EdB December 31, 2018 at 11:57 am
Nope. Depends on how far away the suns are … for example, every star in the sky is a sun, so the earth is heated by thousands of suns …
w.
Nope. The universe is dominated by mass that is not a burning sun. Your model is not correct. Try considering molecule surrounded by hot molecules.
Sigh
Willis, now repeat your experiment with a water word like Earth with evaporative cooling of the type you also write about with a powerful hydrologic cycle.
Ian W December 31, 2018 at 1:17 pm
Sorry, but my experiment specified no greenhouse gases, so I can’t “repeat” it with GHGs.
w.
I disagree with add Spencer’s assertion that W has refuted NZ. Using a non real model of a body surrounded by suns is not a refutation.
So Willis your ‘experiment’ is not valid for Earth and is therefore not applicable to Earth’s climate. As such claiming that another experiment that was intended for Earth is invalid due to your experiment on a virtual world unlike Earth seems to be stretching a point – would you agree?
Ian and EdB, it’s called a “thought experiment”. Einstein was famous for using them. They are invaluable for understanding things when we cannot do real experiments.
Now, N&Z claim that their theory does NOT require GHGs to raise the temperature of the surface of a planet above the S-B temperature. My thought experiment proves that their claim is not possible. Without GHGs the only way for the planet to lose energy is radiation from the surface … and it cannot radiate more than it is receiving.
Does this apply to earth? Nope. It applies to the N&Z claim, and it shows that their claim violates the laws of thermodynamics.
w.
I can’t figure out if Mr. Eschenbach’s proof is too simple or too complicated for me to understand.
Start with the simplest experiment to measure radiation. A heated iron sphere is suspended (by a perfectly insulated material) within a glass vacuum cylinder located in a room (of infinite size) with an air temperature of 70 degrees. We all agree that the sphere will radiate energy until the temperature of the sphere comes into equilibrium with the temperature of the room. 100% of the energy transfer from the sphere would be due to radiation.
Now consider a second experiment. Same situation, except the cylinder is now filled with nitrogen. IMO, the sphere will now reach equilibrium with the surrounding room temperature more rapidly – the sphere can now transfer energy via radiation, conduction, and convection. The “atmosphere” around the sphere does not act as an insulator. In this situation, I believe that Mr. Eschenbach’s proof would hold true.
However, the second experiment does not match the situation of a hypothetical earth with no greenhouse gases. Everyone keeps talking about the lapse rate in the troposphere. However, no one is discussing the incredibly hot temperatures in the thermosphere (up to 3,600 F). This area is directly heated by the sun due to the absorption of UV, visible light, and high energy gamma rays.
I believe it is possible to create a set of conditions in my “room” experiment wherein the temperature of the iron sphere matches the actual observed temperature of the earth – with the surrounding room being set at the temperature of interstellar space. One experiment would use CO2 in the cylinder surrounding the sphere and have a hot thermosphere separating the glass cylinder from “space”. The thermosphere/atmosphere system would certainly retard the heat loss from the sphere into space.
However, we would also set up a second experiment using N2 in the cylinder. I believe this system would also retard the heat loss from the sphere into space – without the use of any greenhouse gas in the cylinder.
I believe the heat and density of the thermosphere in the second experiment (for the same equilibrium sphere temperature) would have to be different than the conditions of the first experiment. However, I do not believe greenhouse gasses are required for the actual earth temperature to exceed the calculated blackbody temperature. IF TRUE, THIS DOES NOT DISPROVE THE GREENHOUSE GASSES THEORY. HOWEVER, IF TRUE, THE FACT THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS THE BLACKBODY IS LIKEWISE NOT PROOF OF A GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
[I am certainly not a physicist, and the hypothetical experiment is simplified. However, I don’t understand the requirement for greenhouse gasses in the much more complicated real-world situation.]
Pillage
You said, “However, no one is discussing the incredibly hot temperatures in the thermosphere (up to 3,600 F).” The temperature of the gas molecules (will determine the distribution, with respect to wavelength, of energy radiated. However, what I think that you are missing is that the total energy radiated is directly related to the number of molecules radiating per unit volume, which is small for that rarefied region of the atmosphere. So, yes, there is radiation coming from the thermosphere, but the quantity is small.
I agree that the amount of energy is quite small.
I do not understand how this layer, plus a pure nitrogen atmosphere, would not raise the temperature of the earth above the theoretical blackbody earth temperature.
Is the answer that the measured temperature increase would be infinitesimal?
“However, I do not believe greenhouse gasses are required for the actual earth temperature to exceed the calculated blackbody temperature.”
So what else? Here is a simple version of Willis’ energy balance:
1. The surface receives about 240 W/m2 solar, on average. Solar is the only overall energy source here (geothermal is tiny). The mass of the atmosphere is not a sustainable energy source.
2. The surface, from S-B and its temperature, emits about 396 W/m2. With no GHG’s to obstruct it, that heat would be lost to the Earth. And then, how can the surface temperature be maintained, with a nett loss of 156 W/m2 and no energy source of its own?
The answer of course is that some of the outgoing radiation is intercepted by GHG and returned, mostly as down IR, restoring the balance. What else?
Why are you ignoring conduction and convection which leads to winds, thus completely changing the temperature distribution, starting with a cooler equator?
“Why are you ignoring conduction and convection . . . ?”
Because conduction and convection cannot transport heat into space.
Conduction and convection can only store heat from the surface temporarily when the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, and return it when the surface is cooler than the atmosphere. It’s like a buffer in a computer system that stores data, but is not the source of it. Since the atmosphere cannot create heat and provide it to the surface on a sustained basis, the only thing that can heat the surface from its black body equilibrium temperature is having an atmosphere that captures heat that the surface would otherwise have emitted directly to space and radiate a portion of that back to the surface.
The new year celebrations at work, Nick.
On reflection you might like to correct your post.
The surface receives 240 solar and 156 IR back radiation which is just recycling the 240 W/m2. It is not new energy.
The 240 coming in is the 240 going out, there is no extra 156 of extra energy.
The GHG and their accompanying atmospheric gases do heat up purely to get the energy to the effective emission level to our 240 back into space from the higher effective level.
There is no balance to restore, the earth never could lose 156 extra energy, it never had it to lose in the first place.
The new year celebrations at work, Nick.
On reflection you might like to correct your post.
The surface receives 240 solar and 156 IR back radiation which is just recycling the 240 W/m2. It is not new energy.
The 240 coming in is the 240 going out, there is no extra 156 of extra energy.
The GHG and their accompanying atmospheric gases do heat up purely to get the energy to the effective emission level to our 240 back into space from the higher effective level.
There is no balance to restore, the earth never could lose 156 extra energy, it never had it to lose in the first place.
1)The surface doesnt get 240 W/m^2.
77W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere before it has a chance to get to the surface.
2) Nick since you are combining the energy balance numbers from a real earth and transposing them to a fictititious earth, your attempt at balancing doesnt make sense.
However let us stick to the real earth AND Before figuring out the DWIR, let us calculate the absorptions and emissions 1st. Since only 163 gets to the surface , 114 of that hits the oceans (70%)and 49 hits the land(30%).
Of the 49 that hits the land, 10% of 86.4 (total evapotranspiration) =(transpiration) = 8.64
is emitted back to atmosphere. that leaves ~40.4 left. Another emission is 18.4 conduction that leaves 22 left to be emitted to atmosphere from land.
From the oceans we have the rest of the evaporation which is 86.4-8.64 = ~ 77.7 So subtract that from the oceans that leaves you 36.3. Add this to the amount left to be emitted from land 36.3 + 22 = 58.3 BUT satellite measurements show a window of 66W/m^2 from surface direct to space NOT 40 as Trenberth originally wrote. To quote Cementafriend “Prof Trenberth wrote us that he knows this. But but he kept his 40 disregarding measurements”
If it really is 66 then there would already be a minus 8 W/m^2 to be emitted from surface. SOMETHING DOES NOT COMPUTE. We don’t have any IR left for the DWIR.
Alan Tomalty January 2, 2019 at 11:17 pm
Sorry, but that makes no sense, and it indicates that you truly don’t understand what you are talking about. Both the land and the ocean receive the same amount of 163 W/m2. It is a PER SQUARE METRE amount, whether the square metre is land or sea.
w.
“Same situation, except the cylinder is now filled with nitrogen. IMO, the sphere will now reach equilibrium with the surrounding room temperature more rapidly – the sphere can now transfer energy via radiation, conduction, and convection.”
If I understand your experiment correctly, it doesn’t quite fit what happens with the Earth. Your sphere starts with a fixed amount of heat in it that slowly dissipates into surrounding air, first by radiating to a glass cylinder that then conducts and/or convects to surrounding air. You modify that to fill the vacuum with a radiatively non-absorbing gas and say that the fixed amount of heat in the sphere can now be transmitted to the glass more effectively via the gas, which then conducts/convects to the surrounding air at the surface of the glass.
But the Earth is a system where the surface is surrounded by air, which is in turn surrounded by a vacuum. The vaccum of space isn’t surrounded by anything and can’t be filled by gas. Gas can surround the earth, but can’t act as a conductive conduit to something outside the Earth. And rather than just having an initial charge of heat to dissipate, the Earth (your cylinder) is constantly heated by an external source – the Sun. So in the real world, the atmosphere won’t help the surface of the Earth conduct or convect to something outside the boundary of the atmosphere, as is the case in your example. And since the surface of the Earth is constantly receiving an energy flux from the sun, convection and conduction can’t do anything to affect the equilibrium temperature that the Earth has to maintain against its surrounding vacuum.
“convection and conduction can’t do anything to affect the equilibrium temperature that the Earth has to maintain against its surrounding vacuum.”
They do create a potential energy store that constantly returns to the surface as heat over half the surface and which then travels to the base of the next region of uplift where the extra heat has to be added to continuing solar input which raises surface temperature above S-B
Pillage,
Three points. First, don’t forget that the Earth – and its atmosphere – is in a vacuum. In the overall scheme, only radiative energy can leave the system, there’s no air out there to convect into. Second, don’t confuse temperature with heat energy, which is temperature multiplied by thermal mass. The thermosphere is hot, but not dense; high temperature with little total energy.
Finally, note that with the addition of an atmosphere, the radiative surface of the iron sphere isn’t the surface of the iron any more, it’s the surface of the gas, subject to the transmission characteristics of that gas. The entire system will be at an equilibrium temperature where the total radiated power is equal to that received; anything below the radiative surface can be at a higher temperature (or perhaps lower, if the gas has a low enough emissivity).
Finally I see someone talk about the emissivity of the atmosphere. As an engineer I know the emissivity is proportional to the partial pressures of the SO2, CO2 and H2O. So the higher the atmospheric pressure the more the “green house” gases will absorb and reradiate. This is how pressure comes in to the equation.
And the more conduction will compete with radiation.
Willis’ proof makes no sense.
If you have an argon atmosphere surrounded by thousands of suns, then the planet will radiate what it radiates, AND the near-surface temperature of the atmosphere will be significantly warmer than the atmosphere 10 km up. It would have to be, as there are more molecules of argon nearer the surface which have conducted with the very hot surface, and far fewer argon molecules 10 km up which are not conducting with the very hot surface. The molecules MAY contain the same kinetic energy above as below, but we measure atmospheric temperature not by individual molecules but by the average kinetic energy of a volume of gas; hence, all else equal, the temperature of a thinner atmosphere MUST be less than that of a thicker atmosphere. Such a situation violates no physical laws. We can’t make any assumptions about what “target” temperature that planet’s surface will be, but we do know that whatever it is, no physical laws are violated.
If you add GHGs the planet will still radiate what it radiates and violate no laws of physics, and the near-surface atmosphere will still be warmer than the atmosphere 10 km up.
Don132
“we measure atmospheric temperature not by individual molecules but by the average kinetic energy of a volume of gas”
That statement may have a latent ambiguity, but it seems at odds with the ideal gas law:
PV=NkT -> T=(P/N)(V/k): The temperature of a given volume of an ideal gas is proportional in accordance with the reciprocal of Boltzmann’s constant to the ratio that the volume’s pressure bears to the number of molecules that occupy that volume.
So temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy per molecule per degree of freedom (where kinetic energy is computed in accordance with the molecular velocities with respect to gas’s center of mass).
“hence, all else equal, the temperature of a thinner atmosphere MUST be less than that of a thicker atmosphere.”
But what’s usually not equal in a thinner atmosphere is the pressure, and if the pressure were lower in proportion to the molecular concentration–i.e., if P/N were the same at 10 km as at the surface–then the temperature would be the same even though the number of molecules is much less.
Joe Born,
Does not less pressure lead to a thinner atmosphere?
” Clearly, temperature has to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules, and if the molecules act like independent point masses, then we could define temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules, the so-called ‘kinetic temperature’.
“It is important to note that the average kinetic energy used here is limited to the translational kinetic energy of the molecules. That is, they are treated as point masses and no account is made of internal degrees of freedom such as molecular rotation and vibration. This distinction becomes quite important when you deal with subjects like the specific heats of gases.”
When we speak of gas temperature we speak of the average translational energy of the molecules within a volume of gas.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
and
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Don132
Stephen, I totally agree with you, and that has been my belief for over 2 decades. Of course, before I retired, I was an engineer in lasers, instrumentation, and weather instruments. I learned the thermal laws and the gas laws, and understand them fully.
But I do have one comment to add. We all know that the sun heats the surface, and the air at the surface every day. We also know that heated air rises through convection. What seems to be ignored is what happens to cause the atmosphere to cool back down at night. We KNOW it gets hot from the sun, but we don’t realize how the cooling takes effect. Hint: It is from the surface UP. The surface radiates, which cools it (ever stick your feet into sand at night?) and the air in contact with that cooled surface is cooled to the temperature of the surface. But that air does not rise – it pools as a cool layer and that layer increases in thickness during the night. Balloon measurements confirm this. Thermometers are at 2 meters to prevent measuring this cooled air at the surface. Simply stated, the atmosphere is heated mostly by the heated surface when sun is present, and it cools mostly by conduction at night. It takes LONGER to cool than to heat, which is why it is coolest JUST before the sun begins warming again. (All comments are without wind.) The surface radiates 24×7, the atmosphere near the surface is warmed only when the sun is present, and cools when it is not. The whole atmosphere is a reservoir of heat that is constantly applied to the earth as it rotates. It does not take downwelling radiation to explain any of this. Oh, and since gh gases can radiate, they also help cool the atmosphere at night, but not by much.
Well described imo. Wind, water, oceans, ice, clouds, etc complicate it all of course, and makes it impossible to compute.
And this is shown by the layers of fog in valleys.
Excellent common-sense explanation, John.
Don132
Infra red rad takes care of the cooling. The atmosphere without adsorptive- re-emittive gases are transparent to infra red going out (and shortwave coming in) If you assume an ocean, yeah huge convection because the much lighter water molecules evaporating from the water surface plus being heated transport huge volumes of heat upwards and “make” weather. With just a cold rock and, say, nitrogen “weather” isn’t much in evidence.
Posted at Dr. Spencer’s blog:
“… radiation from the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface…”
Can I rephrase that? How about:
“…radiation from the atmosphere does indeed result in warming of the surface…”
Words mean things. The sun does the warming, the greenhouse gas interferes with the cooling. The result is warming.
Dr. Spencer agreed that was correct.
What I didn’t post over there was the notion expressed in the first quote above that back radiation warms the earth. It’s semantics. It’s easy to say CO2 warms the earth – rolls off the tongue better than slows the cooling or any other more accurate phrase does. But when you say, “Radiation from the atmosphere warms the surface.” you’re going to get jumped on by a lot of people, and for darn good reason. Because it doesn’t, it can’t – a brick of dry ice, which is pretty close to a 15µ radiating black body, isn’t going to warm anything that’s in the temperate range. It’s just that the background of space at essentially absolute zero will facilitate more rapid cooling.
will facilitate more rapid cooling.
====≠==
One could argue the same for conduction. Instead if radiating energy to space, the surface energy can be conducted to the atmosphere such as when the sun comes up, and then this energy could be conducted from the atmosphere back to the surface 12 hours later when the sum goes down.
However in this case the cooling would be delayed for hours rather than fractions of a millisecond as for radiation, which would appear to make conduction even more powerful than radiation at creating a greenhouse effect.
I agree with your model. I might add that until someone can write code to describe the interaction of clouds, convection, winds, conduction, evaporation, etc., no one will be able to tell which cooling mechanism dominates each minute of each day, to average out to what we know as the climate. It’s a fools errand. We need to take a pill and just wait and see how much if any our added CO2 causes. I still vote for very little, as I doubt we will be able to measure it for certain.
This is certainly a point of common ground between us, though certainly not with the alarmists. If ECS is <1.5K as the evidence implies, it doesn’t practically speaking matter if it is your zero or my 1.3. It is either of no consequence to global surface temperature or slightly beneficial. (Given the practical limits on how much more CO2 we could potentially emit, and how that limits the upper bound on CO2 concentration and thus warming if ECS is ~1.3-1.5).
Either way, the higher CO2 concentration is beneficial to agriculture and plant life in general. The continued use of fossil fuels is the only realistic way that the poor countries will raise themselves from poverty. Even if we are selfishly only interested in the impact that using or eschewing fossil fuels would have on our own standard of living, we must be concerned about that.
Apart from a pure love of knowledge which I don’t denigrate at all, there isn’t a practical aspect to this argument we’re having. Or maybe there is after all. Because in a democracy, it matters less what is true and more what is believed to be true. If the voting public decide that the alarmist view must be right because they mistakenly associate the skeptical view with an unscientific hypothesis that is easily discredited, then the alarmists carry the day and our standard of living crashes.
FACT: Air is an insulator.
Now please explain to me [or provide a link]: How much of the “Green House Effect” is caused simply by the atmosphere surrounding the planet?
Usurbrain – 10:42 am
“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious” – George Orwell.
That is wrong. It’s just not a good conductor. It still is a conductor.
all insulation is a conductor (in fact I believe ALL matter is a conductor of heat, some better than others) … “not a good conductor” is what makes it good as insulation …
Heat is transferred by Brownian random walk
er.com/1F2r.mp4
Usurbrain
Non-convecting air is a poor conductor. However, it does not impede radiation unless there are gas molecules that absorb at the wavelength(s) of radiation.
“However, it does not impede radiation ” That is not logical. The atmosphere on earth is NOT invisible to radiation. Therefore it does “impede” radiation.
For heat transfer from a pipe in a heat exchanger or a fuel rod in a nuclear reactor to work properly the pipe must be in contact to the water. When a film of gas or even a significant number of microscopic bubbles of gas form on the pipe the temperature of the pipe can get hot enough to damage the pipe in the area where these bubbles or film develops. This can happen in a heat exchanger in a low flow area or from an eddy in the pipe from an elbow, flaw, etc. Usually, when bubbles of steam develop the microscopic bubbles can help transfer heat, however after there is a departure from nucleate boiling, the bubbles form a film of steam vapor and can cause the pipes to melt. This film is measured in fractions of inches/millimeters. When there is a departure from nucleate boiling with nuclear fuel rods they can melt.
If a microscopic film of water vapor can act as an insulator, then several miles of air will act as ian insulator.
Usurbrain,
You took half a sentence and said it is not logical, when what makes it true is the part of the sentence you cut off!
Come on!
WTF is going on here with this discussion?
If the GHG absorb/reflect the radiation they impede it. PERIOD. What logic negates that? How else would there be a lapse rate?
“However, it does not impede radiation unless there are gas molecules that absorb at the wavelength(s) of radiation.”
This is what Clyde wrote.
You then took this part:
“However, it does not impede radiation”
And said it is not logical.
Taking half a sentence and arguing against it…?
The “unless” part is what makes the first part true.
“unless there are gas molecules that absorb at the wavelength(s) of radiation.” You have STILL not convinced me that the gas that does NOT absorb does not impede.
When you travel through a crowd you do not get absorbed and you do get impeded. When a neutron passes through material it can take longer to get through the material without being absorbed. Same with photons – as shown by a prism, other electromagnetic particles also “bounce around”.
Yes, the speed of light through a gas is slower than the speed of light through a vacuum.
But it just gets where it is going a little slower.
Radiation outbound from the surface will be in space in a matter of a tiny fraction of a second.
Going slower will not make enough difference to matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Your disagreement did not seem to be one of semantics, but maybe I was wrong.
Usurbrain
You are confusing conduction in a heat exchanger with radiative transfer in the atmosphere or a vacuum.
Only used that discussion to show that gas is an insulator. Which you agreed with.
Repeating – If a microscopic film of water vapor can act as an insulator, then several miles of air will act as an insulator.
Userbrain
Both “insulator” and “conductor” are imprecise terms with approximately opposite meanings. To be more precise, one should quote the quantitative properties, because the ‘insulating’ properties of a given thickness of material are the same as that for a substance of twice the thickness with twice the conductivity. Everything except an absolute vacuum will have some conductivity. The decision to call something an insulator or conductor depends on whether the conductivity is high or low, and to some extent on the application.
Perhaps this report will fill some gaps in your knowledge.
http://www.sfu.ca/phys/346/121/lecture_notes/lecture33_heat_loss.pdf
Pay special attention to the section on “Windows: Convective/conductive layer.” This also happens to the Earth, the reason that the weather instruments are at four to five feet above ground. And the reason the ground stays warmer longer than the air above four feet.
A Stagnant layer prevents and impeded conduction, the air itself still has some insolation. That are an awful lot of books are wrong.
I don’t believe compression or GHG explain why a planet with an atmosphere is warmer than one without.
What explains the SURFACE warming is the lapse rate. This warms the surface while cooling the upper atmosphere, while the average temperature remains unchanged, matching the S-B prediction.
Thus, if you can explain the cause of the lapse rate you can explain why the surface is warmer than predicted by S-B.
I do think it is important to note that the equation for the lapse rate is not dependent on the greenhouse effect.
Rather the lapse rate would appear to be a result of the work performed by the vertical circulation of the atmosphere driven by solar radiation, in a gravity well.
It is thus likely the work performed by the vertical circulation that transfers energy from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere, creating a lapse rate, heating the surface, and cooling the upper atmosphere.
Otherwise the atmosphere would be isothermal. The same temperature at the surface as at altitude.
Ferd,
The lapse rate slope follows the decline in density with height and so is a product of increasing compression as one descends through an atmosphere.
Moving air up or down moves it along that lapse rate slope so the degree of compression changes and so does the temperature as per the gas laws.
The greenhouse effect is a product of compression and not of radiation.
Stephen, likely the GHG effect and the lapse rate are two different names for the same thing, because they both predict the surface to be 32C warmer than the average temperature of the atmosphere.
And equally the GHG effect would occur even without any CO2 because conduction and convection in an atmosphere are no less efficient than radiation at transferring energy.
Conduction and convection are simply slower than radiation, but since the GHG effect is due to slowing the cooling, conduction and convection are if anything better suited than radiation at creating a GHG effect.
The greenhouse effect is a combined cause of radiation absorption in the atmosphere and the lapse rat. Nothing else. The lapse rate exists even with no absorbing gas, but is a gradient, not a level, and the surface cannot warm (on average) unless there is radiation absorption. Willis hit the nail on the head about conservation of energy prohibiting heating above the direct balance with the surface unless there is radiation absorbing gas (or aerosols)..
No, Willis used a non physical body surrounded by suns.
Until that model is binned…. nothing proven.
Leonard has it right. The lapse rate will exist even without any GHGs. However, without them you cannot raise the temperature of the planet’s surface. Hence, the surface temperature would be the SB value based on the energy received.
Adding GHGs allows more energy to be moved into the atmosphere but more importantly provides the ability to raise the height of the radiating temperature above the surface. This allows the lapse rate to provide additional warming of the surface.
You’ve got to have GHGs to do the radiating.
Where I disagree with the current theory is that I think a given lapse rate will always have a maximum radiating temperature. Since the lapse rate is a function of the mass of the atmosphere and the gravitational field, it will be a related to the density/pressure of that atmosphere. I think this is why Z-N found the relationship they found.
Every planet they examined has GHGs. Hence, they all will allow energy to be moved from the surface. This will allow the elevation of the radiating temperature due to the lapse rate.
Basically, the mass of the atmosphere plus the mass of the planet define a unique lapse rate. Given almost any amount of GHGs the height of the radiating temperature will then depend uniquely on the amount of energy received. Adding more GHGs will have no effect.
If the greenhouse effect were a result of radiative effects (not denying that these exist, just denying that they are as important as everyone believes) then why are there no terms for radiative effects in lapse rate equations? But there are most certainly terms for pressure in lapse rate equations.
Don132
Fredberple. Rather “equation for the lapse rate IS dependent on the greenhouse effect – by a small factor“. See the quantitative thermodynamic development of standard atmospheric lapse rate by RH Essenhigh using S-S integral equation method:
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.
Abstract
The greenhouse effect enters as the small “value of the group-pair (kp)o representing the ground-level value of (kp), the product of the effective absorption coefficient and concentration of the mixed gases, written as a single parameter but decomposable into constituent gases and/or gas bands.”
Essenhigh’s development was extended above the troposphere by:
Kolan, S., 2009. Study of energy balance between lower and upper atmosphere (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).
Marcus says that he thought that gases got colder when compressed. I thought that it was basic school physics that gases heated up when compressed. There is a type of engine that was invented by a guy named Diesel that relies on air becoming hot when compressed to work. My car is equipped with this type of engine and seeing as it always gets me where I want to go, I suspect that basic school physics got it right.
“The SB equation always results in a surface temperature that is too cold compared to surface temperatures when an atmosphere is present, and greenhouse theory is traditionally invoked to explain the difference.”
Traditionally invoked? If we invoke it then it must exist?
How about if we prove the existence of the ‘greenhouse theory’ rather than just invoke it to explain away a problem. If this ‘greenhouse’ property exists, then it must manifest itself on Mars (95% CO2 atmosphere), even if close to negligible. Why haven’t we measured it?
Isn’t it interesting that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to determine that the ‘greenhouse theory’ exists which has no equations itself. We’re using a deterministic theory to prove the existence of a non-deterministic theory.
Measuring the ‘greenhouse theory’ would go a long way to proving its existence.
Do Celestial Spheres exist because they were introduced to support a scientific theory? The Geo-centric theory could not explain planetary orbits so Celestial Spheres were ‘invoked’ to explain away the issue. Therefore they exist, right?
The claim is that the Earth is 33C above the temperature derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
What value does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation give for Mars? Is there ‘excess’ heat on Mars as well?
The “excess heat” due to the greenhouse effect on Mars is manifested by a surface temperature excess of about 5K. The greenhouse effect on Mars , despite its 95% CO2 atmosphere composition is affected by the much lower pressure, the lower solar input and the effect of dust storms which have a pronounced anti – greenhouse effect .
The following discussion aid for science teachers contains Trenberth type heat budget diagrams for both Earth and Mars and you can compare the downward longwave radiation for both planets :
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/planetary-energy-budgets
mikewaite: [ The “excess heat” due to the greenhouse effect on Mars is manifested by a surface temperature excess of about 5K. ]
Would you show your work on how you arrived at “about 5K”? I’d like to see the equation, what science did you apply? What assumptions are used to derive your answer? “About 5K” is not exact but rather implies this value falls within some range, is that range as large as +-5K? How are you setting your boundaries?
>>
What value does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation give for Mars? Is there ‘excess’ heat on Mars as well?
<<
The equations and procedure are not very complicated. You can solve it for your self.
Jim
Jim Masterson – “The equations and procedure are not very complicated. You can solve it for your self.”
Thanks. I’m not asking if the equations and procedures are complicated or simplistic, I’m asking you to reproduce them here and now. What assumptions are required before applying those simplistic equations and procedures?
First we need the TSI. The formula for TSI is a modified version of the Stephen-Boltzmann law:
where σ is the Stephen-Boltzmann constant, Ts is the Sun’s surface temperature, Rs is the radius of the Sun, and Rp is the planetary distance. If sigma = 5.670373e-8 W/(m^2 K^4); Ts = 5,778K; Rs = 6.96392e5 Km; and Rp = 1 Astronomical Unit (AU) or 1.496e8 Km; we get: 1,369 W/m^2–which is in the ballpark.
To obtain the surface temperature of the Earth, we use the Stephen-Boltzmann law solved for temperature, or:
But our computed TSI is too high. The logic goes like this: the Earh is a sphere, it captures the solar radiation in a circular area, and because it rotates, it spreads this radiation “evenly” over its surface. We can compute this as follows:
And we also have to take into consideration the planetary albedo. The Earth’s albedo is about 0.30, or it reflects about 30% of the incoming radiation back to space. So now we can solve for temperature:
If we do the same thing for Mars, we get about 590 W/m^2 for the TSI at Mars (since we were using AU for Rp, the Martian AU is 1.523679–we increase Rp by that factor). The Martian albedo is about 0.25. Solving for the Martian surface temperature, we get 210K. Considering that the average surface temperature for Mars is from 208k to 210K, there’s not much “excess” to play with. Of course, you can “play” with the numbers as you like.
Jim
Thanks, Jim, clearly stated.
I note that you correctly say:
In that regard, note that Ned Nikolov simply made up a Martian temperature of 180K so it would fit with his bogus “Miracle Equation” … oooh, very, very bad boy …
I note that Stephen Wilde and his other defenders here won’t touch that fact with a 10 metre pole …
w.
Thanks Willis for your kind comments.
Jim
Jim Masterson – Thanks for the response, that’s excellent.
[But our computed TSI is too high. The logic goes like this: the Earth is a sphere, it captures the solar radiation in a circular area, and because it rotates, it spreads this radiation “evenly” over its surface.]
I don’t believe the sun’s radiation is ‘spread evenly over the Earth’s surface’, do you? That’s a bad assumption that directly impacts the result.
[The Earth’s albedo is about 0.30]
“About 0.30” is still the value used? Climate science has had a tremendous amount of time and computer processing power and there has been no improvement on this value which directly impacts the result?
Are your derived values, based entirely upon these bad assumptions, the only evidence that the ‘greenhouse gas’ property exists? That is truly pathetic!
>>
Thanks for the response, that’s excellent.
<<
Thanks, I appreciate compliments.
>>
I don’t believe the sun’s radiation is ‘spread evenly over the Earth’s surface’, do you? That’s a bad assumption that directly impacts the result.
<<
You didn’t ask me initially what I thought–you wanted to know how climatologists possibly make the calculations. This calculation ranks as a back-of-the-envelope type; because the equations fit on the back of an envelope, and the answer is available in a few minutes. If you really want an more “correct” answer it will take a lot of work. From first principles you’ll need trigonometry, differential and integral calculus, and lots of analytical geometry. The result will probably be an unwieldy, non-linear equation that needs to be integrated (to compute the average) and has no analytical integral. That means it will have to be integrated using limit theory and (horrors) a computer. But by all means, you go ahead–I’m content with the equations and assumptions I used.
However, let’s say the 255K answer has an error of 10%. (I don’t think it’s anywhere that big.) Ten percent is 26K or ±26K. It then ranges from 229K to 281K. You still can’t get rid of that last 7K; and it could be as bad as 59K.
>>
“About 0.30” is still the value used?
<<
Roughly. I think it’s decreasing slightly.
>>
Are your derived values, based entirely upon these bad assumptions, the only evidence that the ‘greenhouse gas’ property exists? That is truly pathetic!
<<
It’s only pathetic, if you’re trying to get rid of the GHE. I think one exists. Ever spent time in a desert? A tropical forest? I have. That water vapor makes a big difference in temperature ranges.
Jim
..I’ve been waiting for this discussion all year. Good timing for it. I really want to know, is it 10% possible, 40%, 60% ? Way beyond my “pay grade” to understand BUT, I do understand that the possibility cannot be 0%…IMHO
“The same parcel of energy in the form of surface heat cannot be in two places at once so energy that is being constantly recycled between KE and PE within convective overturning is simply not available for radiation to space.”
Eh?
Steven a parcel of air has a temperature …. and therefore radiates. To space.
“The problem with an upward facing IR thermometer is simply that it will measure a temperature at the height where atmospheric density triggers the sensor. ”
Steve, an IR thermo is measuring LWIR photons that have entered thermo HAVING downwelled from the atmosphere. It isn’t measuring a height. Those photons have come from many heights tho chiefly from below the level of effective ratitive cooling (-18C).
As Clyde said (beat me to it) – the “bike tyre” is sufficient debunking of the “theory”.
In order for atmospheric density to be the cause of the excess 33C above S-B then the compressional heating contributed by the atmosphere due to it being at an average 1013mb at the surface MUST be kept up continually. By that I mean constantly be compressed and decompressed (which is zero-sum anyway)
Otherwise it is a violation of the 1st LoT.
Perpetual free energy!
Hypothetically, were we able to take a model airless Earth and suddenly introduce our atmosphere under gravity, then yes there would be compressional heating BUT it will then cool to space.
This is where the fallacy falls down.
It is not the fact that the atmosphere is in a permanently compressed state that gives the compressional heating.
It is the ACT of compressing it.
An action – the reaction – conservation of energy.
Then THAT’S it.
Your bike tyre doesn’t stay perpetually hot because it’s at 80 Bar!
It heats on the act of getting compressed to 80 bar.
Then it cools, because the heating action has stopped.
The answer to our energy problems if it did.
Incidentally gravity works on the atmosphere to create the LR via the relation -g/Cp.
Which is then further modified by the GHE and LH release aloft.
AB
We are actually in agreement for a change! 🙂
Same for Compressed Air bottles used for divers and firemen. I helped refill the bottles when I was a volunteer fireman. We placed them in a farm water trough/tub of water to help cool the tanks as we filled them. They still got rather warm to the touch. Next day they were all at room temperature.
Although I’ve long since lost patience with Nikolov and Zeller, I remain receptive to a theory, which Luboš Motl discussed at https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html, that can easily be confused with theirs.
The theory is that beyond a certain point a planet’s surface temperature depends more on its atmosphere’s thickness than on its greenhouse-gas content.
Perhaps that theory is wrong, but I haven’t seen a compelling refutation.
Patience is a card game, nothing scientific.
Yup, exactly what I have been saying for many years too. I suspect the profile of an atmosphere in a gravitational field will define a lapse rate AND an average radiating altitude independent of the amount of GHGs (you just need enough to radiate away the incoming energy).
This is what Z-N found. They didn’t understand it and hence tried to invent something else to explain their finding.
“independent of the amount of GHGs”
I think I agree with you and that you agree with Dr. Motl’s (explanation of Mr. Heller’s) theory, but that quoted phrase is not quite correct, at least as I understand Dr. Motl’s theory.
As I understand that theory, the surface won’t radiate more power than that of the (virtually all solar) incoming radiation at the top of the atmosphere, no matter what the atmosphere’s mass is, unless the atmosphere includes at least some greenhouse gases. So according to Dr. Motl it’s not true that the surface radiation is completely independent of greenhouse gases.
But, as the atmosphere’s greenhouse-gas-imparted infrared opacity increases, the surface radiation’s sensitivity to greenhouse-gas concentration falls, and its sensitivity to lapse rate increases. When the resultant opacity becomes high, the surface radiation’s sensitivity to greenhouse-gas concentration therefore becomes negligible, and the integral of the lapse rate with respect to altitude becomes the variable that principally determines the surface radiation.
As (I believe) you say, this may be the effect that caused Nokolov & Zeller to arrive at their theory. (Or maybe not; I found their exposition confusing.)
Zeller and Nikolov, aren’t they two russkies who were fascinated by the Salisbury cathedral height ?
That was yer man Pablo Miller, Skripal’s MI6 handler, since served with a Gov’t D-notice. Maybe ye need to check some more?
My thanks to both Dr. Roy Spencer, one of my scientific heroes, and Anthony Watts, another of the same, for pointing out my proof that gravity or pressure cannot cause a permanent elevation in planetary surface temperature. Ned Nikolov’s nonsense has more lives than a cat.
For another look at the kind of goofy claims that Nikolov believes are valid, see my post entitled “The Mystery of Equation Eight“.
w.
That I can follow. Their Nte looks a lot like the lifetime of CO2 according to the Bern model.
Your proof is not valid. Your model is non physical. A body surrounded by suns as you describe would heat up to match the suns mean radiative temperature. Your explaination using the cold universe is false, as the non radiative mass in the universe keeps the mean universe temperature near absolute zero.
I derived the parameterized equations NZ used and I think they are on to something. I await some better probe data from new source moons to verify their work.
So much wrong with that statement .. where to start.
The lack of any molecules is what makes space cold because in the whacky world of classical physics you define temperature as roughly the average kinetic energy of being struck by a molecule. Under classical physics you then end up with a strange plausable fate of the universe called a heat death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
In that lovely end to the universe space is still cold even though the universe has died from heat (because of the lack of molecules) … strange hey.
The lesson here is be very careful when evoking classical physics on the universe as all teh theories usually drop into a very very big hole.
Oh I really should link the paradox as worked out a century ago, you might not get the background from wiki it’s a bit lacking on background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox
Does this same proof disprove the idea that adding GHGs to the atmosphere beyond what is needed to completely capture surface radiation, nonetheless further increases temperatures at the surface by raising the theoretical escape level of emission in the atmosphere, thereby raising surface surface temperatures due the lapse rate (what I have often heard referred to as the “enhanced greenhouse effect”) ?
I ask this because of the post by Stephen Wilde above. It seems to me that both he and the proponents of the enhanced greenhouse effect are making the same logical error – they both simply create this theoretically-unbounded equal exchange of heat between the atmosphere and the surface to get as much of a surface temperature increase as you want.
Don’t mistake me here. I completely agree that an atmosphere that traps any portion of radiation emitted from the surface that otherwise would have escaped directly to space would cause surface temperatures to rise. It’s a textbook feedback effect. What I’m questioning is whether you can get a further increase in temperature at the surface by having a top layer of the atmosphere intercept what was emitted outward by a bottom layer of the atmosphere, and cause the bottom layer’s temperature (and the air temperature at the surface) to rise due merely to the pressure gradient that already exists in the atmosphere. That theory has always been where I jump off the greenhouse theory bandwagon.
Kurt,
Read my linked description.
You can only raise the surface temperature by enough to produce such an upward pressure gradient force as will offset the downward force of gravity.
There is no logical error.
“You can only raise the surface temperature by enough to produce such an upward pressure gradient force as will offset the downward force of gravity.”
That doesn’t even begin to make sense. The downward force of gravity is the same in Phoenix on a bright summer afternoon as it is in Anchorage on a clear winter night. The surface temperatures at these locations differ vastly, and that difference has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity does not change over the course of a day or a year, yet temperatures do vary significantly over the these intervals.
Kurt
You must consider the globe as a whole. There are bound to be differences from place to place on the surface.
“What I’m questioning is whether you can get a further increase in temperature at the surface by having a top layer of the atmosphere intercept what was emitted outward by a bottom layer of the atmosphere, and cause the bottom layer’s temperature (and the air temperature at the surface) to rise due merely to the pressure gradient that already exists in the atmosphere. That theory has always been where I jump off the greenhouse theory bandwagon.”
Kurt:
Don’t see why you would question that.
And the “pressure gradient” has nothing to do with it (if I understand you correctly)
It is simply a furtherance of the affect you accept.
The GHE is a function of path-length of terrestrial IR through the atmosphere to space. (Beer-Lambert Law).
https://www.britannica.com/science/Beers-law
The longer the path the more GHG molecules photons encounter exiting to space.
It’s like a mist/fog into which you shine a torch beam – you will see the fog particles intercept the light and reflect (insert back-radiate for LWIR in the GHE) back to you. The more powerful the beam the further back through the fog they will travel and have more particles in their path.
At the level of effective emission to space (where more photons escape up and out to space than get back-radiated (this is at a height of -18C – Earth’s S-B equilibrium temp) though, emitting molecules are colder and so less efficient at the job of emission to space than are the molecules lower down.
It is this level that rises as concentrations of GHGs increase – BOTH increasing the path-length (more intercepting molecules AND a colder effective emitting level).
So you predict a hot spot but yet it does not happen. Thus your model must be deficient.
Edb:
Seems you didn’t get the message.
Mind you wouldn’t on here.
It has been….
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
Also a “Tropical hotspot” would happen under any form of heating, as it is caused simply by the release of excess LH aloft under enhance Oceanic tropical heating.
Anthony – Sherwood’s analysis doesn’t count. It is unreliable because it uses wind data as a proxy for temperature. Christy et al challenged this in 2010, and the IPCC (referring inter alia to Christy) gave this method a “low confidence” in AR5 as follows:
“Atmospheric winds are driven by thermal gradients. Radiosonde winds
are far less affected by time-varying biases than their temperatures (Gruber and Haimberger, 2008; Sherwood et al., 2008; Section 2.7.3). Allen and Sherwood (2007) initially used radiosonde wind to infer temperatures within the Tropical West Pacific warm pool region, then extended this to a global analysis (Allen and Sherwood, 2008) yielding a distinct tropical upper tropospheric warming trend maximum within
the vertical profile, but with large uncertainty. Winds can only quantify
relative changes and require an initialization (location and trend at that location) (Allen and Sherwood, 2008). The large uncertainty range was predominantly driven by this initialization choice, a finding later confirmed by Christy et al. (2010), who in addition questioned the stability given the sparse geographical sampling, particularly in the
tropics, and possible systematic sampling effects amongst other potential issues. Initializing closer to the tropics tended to reduce or remove the appearance of a tropical upper tropospheric warming trend maximum (Allen and Sherwood, 2008; Christy et al., 2010). There is only low confidence in trends inferred from ‘thermal winds’ given the relative immaturity of the analyses and their large uncertainties.”
Please Anthony, no more references to Sherwood. It will not resolve anything.
Jordan:
This study is not by Sherwood ….
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50465
“Using these approaches, it is shown that within observational uncertainty, the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled‐ocean and atmosphere‐only models are consistent with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa), and models with ultra‐high horizontal resolution (≤ 0.5° × 0.5°) perform particularly well.”
Anthony, your alternative paper resolves nothing. It says
“Nevertheless, the models still exhibit more warming than the observations in the upper troposphere (above ∼250 hPa), and the upper most level (150 hPa) of model simulated temperature trends is not consistent with observations over the 5–95 percentile range.”
OK, we’re no further forward than Christy’s 2010 conclusion that predicted scaling ratio (indicating a hot spot) is not evident in the observational data.
If you cannot provide conclusive evidence, why toss-in references to articles that contribute nothing to the discussion?
“If you cannot provide conclusive evidence, why toss-in references to articles that contribute nothing to the discussion?”
Because it has.
That is your interpretation.
I beg to differ.
OK?
Come back to EdB’s question “So you predict a hot spot but yet it does not happen. Thus your model must be deficient”
You have tried Sherwood (nope) and then another reference. With two shots, you added nothing to make a dent in Christy’s 2010 conclusion that there is a significant discrepancy between the models and observations on the measure of scaling ratio (predicted structure of warming due to GHGs) . EdB raised valid point and your responses fail to address it. OK.
“So you predict a hot spot but yet it does not happen. Thus your model must be deficient”
I have addressed it.
With that study.
It has been predicted and it has been found.
That denizens here naysay that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, the model is deficient (at that close-up detailed part of the atmosphere).
Are you saying that there is no global warming at all?
Because it would be there with any kind of warming it is not dependent on the GHE
Again from the abstract…
“Using these approaches, it is shown that within observational uncertainty, the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled‐ocean and atmosphere‐only models ARE CONSISTENT with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa), and models with ultra‐high horizontal resolution (≤ 0.5° × 0.5°) perform particularly well….”
So correct (within uncertainties) other that the topmost level.
Of which they say “Other than model resolution, it is hypothesized that this remaining discrepancy could be due to a poor representation of stratospheric ozone or remaining observational uncertainty.
No one is saying that models are perfect, especially when zooming into that amount of detail.
That level is obviously hard for the models to resolve being just under the Tropopause with the stratospheric O3 just above
That without the observational difficulties inherent at that level.
It seems to be a case of it’s not perfect so it’s completely wrong.
We don’t know everything – so we know nothing.
Now where have I come across that before.
Oh yeah.
The idea that the enhanced GHG effect is dependent on lapse rate (temperature and pressure of a gas are related by P is equal to kVT) is commonly proffered as an explanation as to why surface temperatures increase as the optical depth of the atmosphere increases. See these links:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/
https://atmos.washington.edu/2007Q1/211/Notes/old_notes/Section4.pdf
The Beer-Lambert law only deals with the depth at which radiation from the Earth’s surface can be absorbed, and only tells you that as the concentration of GHGs increase, the atmosphere gets more efficient at absorbing the radiation from the surface, intercepting closer to the Earth’s surface or intercepting more of it of some of the surface radiation was escaping to space. But the atmosphere can’t capture more than what the Earth throws up at it.
GHG molecules don’t reflect energy, like your fog example. They absorb it and then kinetically transfer the heat absorbed to the remainder of the atmosphere, which can’t directly absorb radiation. Thus, the GHG molecules’ temperature is locked to the temperature of the bulk atmosphere surrounding them. GHGs also radiate in proportion to their temperature, but because their temperature is locked to the non-GHGs surrounding them, the heat GHGs radiate comes from the bulk atmosphere. The common perception that GHGs capture radiation and re-radiate it is wrong; you have to analytically separate the absorptive properties of GHGs from their radiative properties since absorption and radiation by GHGs in an atmosphere have completely separate mathematical behaviors.
My question remains unanswered: once all the radiation emitted to space comes from the atmosphere at thermal equilibrium because the atmosphere absorbs everything from the surface, how can the temperature of the atmosphere increase from top to bottom while maintaining thermal equilibrium? If it radiates more, where does the additional heat that it radiates first come from, and what cools to provide that heat?
I agree that GHGs virtually do not reflect imparted IR photons, like a tennis ball. Thousands of thermalizing interactions with N2, O2, etc, happen first. Thus the net effect of more CO2 is merely to reduce the average distance a photon travels before being absorbed. So what if that is reduced from say ten meters to five? The action of convection and conduction shifts a bit but is all averaged out within minutes. The only temperature change I see is a result of ‘friction’ in the system,ie, heat transfer is less than instantaneous and ideal.
Kurt, I believe the claim is that the atmosphere absorbs more radiation at the wings of the CO2 absorption band. So, it hasn’t absorbed it all yet.
That’s certainly part of it. Not only is there more radiation at the sidebands of CO2 that water vapor does not capture, but in dry, cold regions there is not enough water vapor to capture all of the radiation from the surface to space. I’m not arguing that there is no more warming to be done by adding GHGs to the atmosphere. What I am arguing is that the amount of warming is overstated because the IPCC and other warmists think that even over areas of the Earth where water vapor and other GHGs already capture all of the emitted radiation, adding GHGs in such regions still increases surface temperature by lifting the effective altitude of emission, raising the temperature aloft which propagates downward due to the lapse rate. It’s only this part of the theory that I jump ship on.
If gravitational energy is converted into heat, then the planet will slowly lose mass.
Energy will be conserved, and there is no violation of Thermodynamics.
I’m no supporter of Zeller-Nikolov theory, but suspect that it does not violate the 1st Law as supposed.
Pat
Gravity in a star causes heat – that’s how stars ignite by fusion above a certain size. If this heating per se is associated with mass loss, that’s a very strange and unfamiliar nuclear reaction. I think you’ll find that if pressure-temperature from gravity cause mass loss, the universe would have lost all its baryonic mass long ago.
Tasfay Martinov
BUT, stars radiate energy — rather spectacularly! One might say that they are stellar performers.
Tasfay, gravity causes compressional heat in a star by the conventional PV=nrT.
My understanding of the surmise here, is that gravitational energy is converted into heat energy. Loss of gravitational energy requires loss of mass, however that might happen. There’d be no violation of the first law.
I’m confused by the whole thing. The average temperature of the planet is something like 1500°C. Black body nor anything else I’ve seen here applies.
Is that you Mr. Gore?
If you mean the average temperature including the core, it’s irrelevant. You’re forgetting the insulating characteristics of rock, which is what keeps us from getting roasted by magma. The heat leakage through the crust is relatively minor in the climactic scheme of things (barring another Deccan or Siberian Trap episode!).
What matters is the balance between energy received from the Sun and energy radiated by the earth’s surface and upper atmosphere. The temperature that’s important to us, at the surface and in the lower kilometer or so of the atmosphere, depends on how much the atmosphere above it absorbs or passes IR radiation. See my rather lengthy post elsewhere in these comments.
My total knowlwdge of thermodynamics
P1*V1/T1 = P2*V2/T2 , or P*V = n* R*T
is a one off short term event, so these guys (in my book) must be wrong.
The atmospheric lapse rate does in fact result in a temperature gradient (increasing temperature as you approach the surface) even with no greenhouse gases. However this is a gradient, not a specific level of temperature. One more piece of information is needed to set the surface level. With no greenhouse gases, the radiation from the surface has to match (on average) the absorbed solar radiation, so Willis is correct. It is the fact that with greenhouse gases, the average location of the source of radiation balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is well above the surface (near 5 km for Earth and about 50 km for Venus) that results in those locations having the required temperatures to cause the balance. With the temperature set at this average altitude to obtain balance, it is in fact the lapse rate time the average altitude that determines the surface temperature increase over the no greenhouse gas case. N & Z confuse a gradient with a temperature level.
That’s a better explanation, at least to me.
Their temperature level is determined by the distance to the sun.
“With no greenhouse gases, the radiation from the surface has to match (on average) the absorbed solar radiation…”
At the same time, the GHG-free atmosphere MUST retain some heat conducted from the surface and it cannot radiate that heat away, with no violation of any physical law! Maybe we’re missing something?
I think we’re throwing globs at the problem in order to dismiss NZ.
Don132
One thought I have here: Given the surface temperature predicted by S-B, corrected for albedo, IR emissivity, etc., given the amount of warming expected from greenhouse gases, given an expected lapse rate, the thickness of the troposphere can be roughly predicted.
Anyone who resorts to a “proof” based on Leibniz’s conservation of force (yes, not energy) should check Helmholz who made a complete fool of himself refuting Weber’s electrodynamics.
He is the template for the sheer unimaginative sterile consensus. As Dr. Bohm said, “impossibility proofs” are only proof of the lack of imagination, a Kan’tian disease (See J.S. Bell Unspeakable in QM). It takes a poet like Edgar Allan Poe, or Heinrich Heine to sent obscurantist rubbish out the window. 3 References available for the brave.
According to the adored 2nd Law, all life would not exist, nor WUWT!
What happens in the center of a star when the fuel runs out?
What happens in the center of a gas giant planet after it has condensed?
Does it stay just as hot as it started out after 4.5 billion years have elapsed?
Seems you know – tell us.
If one considers a complex non-equilibrium system with thermal interchanges based on conduction, convection, and radiation emission/absorption, then it would be astonishing if changing one parameter didn’t have an effect on the system as a whole. The important questions are how much, how fast, when, where, what happens next if all other inputs don’t remain the same, etcetera.
Of course, the above arguments constitute no formal proof or refutation of anything at all. But a little bit of scientific experience of how the universe usually works can take you along way when needing to wade through so much material which often turns out to be ill-informed, wrong, or just plain BS. That is the real purpose of peer review. It is just a filter, not a guarantor of anything.
So we return to the usual. Some people on both sides are very good at arguing around the houses. But I’ve also ‘won’ arguments I should have not have won in the bar. It’s physical evidence that eventually wins in science, and that means properly testable predictions. Nobody has won anything noteworthy at all in climate-science by that metric. They just have models of varying degrees of plausibility.
Agreed. After all these years and billions the computer models do not correctly predict the temperature on Venus. NK is the only one?
That is what intrigues me about NZ. Their equation PREDICTS the surface temperature on these celestial bodies. I have seen zero predictive formulas from any greenhouse gas theory proponents, just models and conjecture based on other equations. If GHGs can do what the proponents claim, develop an equation to describe it. NZ have done this and I have seen nobody that can dispute the correctness of the equation. As more celestial bodies are explored, I think the NZ will eventually get the Nobel Prize.
” If GHGs can do what the proponents claim, develop an equation to describe it. ”
OK
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
Where ‘dF’ is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, ‘C’ is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and ‘Co’ is the reference CO2 concentration.
There you go.
dF == 5.35 In(C/Co)
Does that apply universally for all planetary atmospheres? When we plug it in for Mars what do we get?
Don132
You have not shown your working for all of the planets, please do so.
And while you are at it show the Surface Temperature of the Moon according the S& B calculations.
There are so many “Unknown, Unknowns” about our universe, that we, as a Human race, are blindingly jumping off of the cliff of stupidity.
A good place to start is to get all of the “known knowns” straight, and then clear out all of the “known but ain’t so’s”.
In all of the discussions of earth’s temperature I have yet to see a note about the internal temperature of the earth.
“The heat of the Earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW.[17] The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
Roy, total heat flow from the earth is estimated at 44 Terawatts constant flux. Divide that by the area of the earth and you get about 86 milliwatts per square metre … on a planet where downwelling total radiation averages about half a kilowatt per square metre.
Since geothermal heat is only about two-hundredths of one percent (0.02%) of total incoming energy, it is usually ignored in energy balance calculations.
w.
That’s cool Willis, I calculated the heat flow from the earth a few years ago with information in the 50th edition of the CRC Handbook on Chemistry and Physics. I got 88 milliwatts/sq meter. Nice to see corroboration. Thanks for all your writing. A Prosperous and Happy New Year to you and yours, and all who contribute here while I’m at it.
As long as we are going to look at the fundamentals, we should agree at the start on proper terms and definitions. Things are missing and some are confused. I see several problems, and they are rooted in the errors in the arguments commonly used to claim that if the GHG’s were removed from the atmosphere, the temperature of that atmosphere (for arguments sake, 2 m above the surface) would be very low, like the average temperature of the surface of the moon.
It is always based on a calculation of GHG back radiation, and absent that back radiation, the argument goes that the surface will radiate directly to space as if the planet had no atmosphere even if it has one. That’s silly. Why? Because it has one!
In the example the IPCC uses, the planet has an atmosphere, but it has no GHG’s. The claim made is that absent GHG’s, the atmosphere will cool until it is the same temperature as the surface would be in the absence of any atmosphere.
The argument presented in the article above, supposedly invalidating something, approaches this from the opposite side: It claims that a planet without any atmosphere will be temperature X (average about -18C) and that adding an atmosphere will cause no change to the surface temperature, argued on the basis that if are no GHG’s there is no back radiation so therefore there is nothing to increase the (average) surface. Too many aspects of reality are ignored, including the physical presence of an atmosphere in contact with the surface.
Huh? If there is no back radiation, there is still convective heating of the atmosphere and the surface will cool against the air. The arguments in both cases ignore the fact that the surface heats the air whether there are GHG’s or not. That is a pretty big omission in something claimed to be a proof or a disproof.
There are two sources of heating of the atmosphere (surface heating and GHG’s), and two for cooling it (radiation to space or cooling against the surface). Convective heating from the hot surface lowers the daytime surface temperature. GHG back radiation re-heats the surface if there are GHG’s present. Absent the GHG’s, the atmosphere is still heated by the surface, and that heat will drive vertical circulation patterns. There is no need for GHG’s to drive convective circulation of air over a hot surface. Without this air circulation over the surface, the surface would be about 200 C during the day. In fact it is about 70 so there is 130 C of cooling of the surface, energy transferred to the air. No GHG’s need be involved in this. The “disproof” implies this heating does not occur.
Obviously such a GHG-free atmosphere cannot cool by radiation in the temperature range we might expect. The air would be heated day by day until the system was in thermal equilibrium. At what temperature will that happen? It will be a heck of a lot higher than the average -18 C. If the incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation from the surface and an atmosphere without any GHG’s is present, the temperature of the air 2m above the surface will be what? 50 C? 100 C?
At this point we have to move beyond “-18C average temperature” and look at the peaks, because the system rotates and is a globe. The surface temperature in the daytime at the equator might be over 100 C and so will the air above it. At night the surface can cool but the air cannot as it does so poorly against a cold surface below.
The Nikolov-Zeller claims are not valid because the have failed to describe the system properly. They implicitly accept that there is convective heating (because there is a vertical temperature profile) but ignore such heating in their explanation. Further, they do not understand the absorption, emission and refraction of IR.
Willis’ disproof also ignores convective heating and its influence in the presence or absence of GHG’s. There are flips in the text from surface temperature to air temperature, with and without an atmosphere, but narry a mention of the influence on the air temperature from its contact with the surface – something that continues with or without GHG’s. A portion of all heat reaching the surface from above or below heats the air directly – if an atmosphere is present.
Gavin Schmidt’s “explanation” of the GHG effect correctly shows that the back radiation drops to zero in the absence of GHG’s but completely ignores the convection heating component of the energy paths. He too claims that the air temperature will drop to -18C. Even that is incorrect: it is an over-simplification using the “moon” example because it speaks of average, not actual temperature. It is convenient for his argument in that if there was no convective heating, averaging gives the same answer. Which is to say, ignoring a portion of reality gives an answer – just the wrong one.
From the article above
“In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.”
This is simply untrue. The presence of any atmosphere will limit the surface temperature during the daytime. In the absence of any greenhouse effect, the air temperature will rise (a lot) because it will be cooling the daytime surface. The “In other words” explanation is incorrect. It also violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by failing to consider convective heat transfer as well as radiative heat transfer. That doesn’t make the Nikolov-Zeller hypothesis correct, but it is an incomplete disproof.
The awful implication of the correction for the influence of GHG’s is that in their absence, the air temperature would rise because it cannot cool radiatively. GHG’s not only heat, they cool. When it comes to the temperature of the atmosphere, its radiative cooling from convective heating has to be part of the explanation. It is missing.
Good summary.
Add any of a number of other factors, not the least of which is clouds, and accurate modeling becomes intractable.
In reality, it has been warmer with more CO2 and it has been cooler with more CO2. It’s also been warmer and cooler with less CO2. It simply is not possible to definitively say what the climate will do without uncertainty.
Yes. The key word is “tractable”.
Edward Lorenz gave some valedictory lectures which MIT archived a few years ago. (They were just non-searchable images of text when I looked at them.)
He went out of his way to caution later generations of meteorologist and climate-scientists to only study problems that are tractable. It seems to me they have ignored his advice completely in the pursuit of funding. It is a broken science.
Nicely put. I might add that the atmosphere is moving heat by wind to take the heat to locations where it is cooler, ie, the poles. This is not a 100% efficient process, so the actual temperature profile on the surface will deviate from the ideal.
EdB
We do not have to invoke the wind and distribution until we have agreed that the surface heats the air directly. That is the first stepping stone. If the surface heats the air, then it has be appear in each expression. Next, we have to agree that GHG’s cool the air, and again this must appear in each expression.
For example, the cooling by radiation to space exceeds the total heating by GHG’s and IR direct from the sun. Why? Because cooling has to include atmospheric heating by the surface, heating that is not even mentioned!
We do have to invoke the diurnal surface temperature because the air convects heat so poorly downwards. In other words, it is heated easily and carries the heat away, but does not give it back easily. Not at all. Check the effectiveness of heating an upper plate by electrically heating a lower plate, using air as the transfer medium, then trying to heat the lower plate by electrically heating the upper one. Bi-i-i-ig difference in the heat transfer rate.
Without doing any math at all, it is intuitively clear that without GHG’s the air will be hotter than the average surface temperature. When using “average insolation and average temperature”, this salient fact is obscured.
I don’t expect everyone to catch onto all the ramifications of this immediately. This “backward calculation to what the temperature would be if…” is so badly handled in the “formal” climate science community, it requires, as in the case of Lucy Van Pelt where Linus has to unlearn everything she taught him, some stern organisation.
Zeller started off with a misunderstanding (a common one) wherein temperature and energy were confused. It is confusing because an albedo and a temperature can equal an energy gain or loss rate, which is power. But temperature is an intensive metric and energy is quantitative. They are tossed around willy-nilly in the hypotheses with no proofs emerging at all.
Even the concept of a global average temperature is very misleading. To make a meaningful quantification one has to consider the humidity at the time each temperature was recorded to make an effort to get the enthalpy of the atmosphere. It is trivial to demonstrate an increase in energy in a parcel of air at a lower temperature. Global warming implies an increase in enthalpy, a calculation not possible from a temperature set alone.
This whole GHG warming story is very, very screwed up.
Screwed up? Yes, beyond belief screwed up. The only sensible thing to do is ignore the ‘experts’ and watch the UAH graph. Over the next 50 years we should know how much warming will occur. My bet is that natural factors will dominate any CO2 effect.
“Obviously such a GHG-free atmosphere cannot cool by radiation in the temperature range we might expect. The air would be heated day by day until the system was in thermal equilibrium. At what temperature will that happen? It will be a heck of a lot higher than the average -18 C. If the incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation from the surface and an atmosphere without any GHG’s is present, the temperature of the air 2m above the surface will be what? 50 C? 100 C?”
I don’t know where on earth you could have gotten that idea.
An atmosphere (N2 and O2 only) and without GHGs would be transparent to LWIR.
And there would therefore be no impediment to its escape to space.
The Earth’s surface would be at the S-B BB equilibrium temp in such a case.
Some convection and turbulent mixing would still occur due to DeltaTs created by diurnal and latitudinal SW heating of the surface.
(DeltaTs create DeltaPs create winds/turbulence).
“the temperature of the air 2m above the surface will be what? 50 C? 100 C?””
No it would be at -18C the S-B equilibrium temp (given a BB ) or therabouts.
Anthony Banton
“An atmosphere (N2 and O2 only) and without GHGs would be transparent to LWIR.
And there would therefore be no impediment to its escape to space.
The Earth’s surface would be at the S-B BB equilibrium temp in such a case.”
The statement misses the point that the air (N2 and O2 only) would be heated by that hot surface, cooling it, storing heat in the atmosphere. This component of atmospheric heating is missing from the “LWIR” argument. Trenberth 2009 acknowledges direct heating to be 168 W/m^2 with GHG’s and 336 in their absence (I think he underestimates it but that is a different discussion).
In the next paragraph you agree there is heating of the air – immediately after implying there is not. Your conclusion therefore cannot be correct. You cannot heat a parcel of O2-N2 and have its temperature rise, and then at night, have it cool to the temperature of the surface 1 or 2 km below. That cannot happened because it cannot cool radiatively and it is unlikely to impinge on the radiating surface. Once warmed, the air would remain warm, considering of course the adiabatics.
I have already covered the rest of the explanation.
“The argument presented in the article above, supposedly invalidating something, approaches this from the opposite side: It claims that a planet without any atmosphere will be temperature X (average about -18C) and that adding an atmosphere will cause no change to the surface temperature, argued on the basis that if are no GHG’s there is no back radiation so therefore there is nothing to increase the (average) surface.”
I think you are misunderstanding the proof of this post. It requires no position on the presence or absence of back radiation heating the surface. The N-Z theory is that an atmosphere alone heats the surface beyond the black body temperature that would otherwise exist, and that therefore not all heating comes from GHGs. To test this, you just hypothesize an atmosphere without GHGs, such that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy OUTWARD into space, and that all radiation out into space has to come from the surface of the planet. Since the surface of the planet is at a first temperature at equilibrium with space without an atmosphere, it follows that the atmosphere per se cannot not heat the surface (e.g. by it’s mere existence independent of GHGs) because if it did, equilibrium would not be maintained at the boundary of the planet’s atmosphere with space. The surface temperature would rise and more radiation would escape into space than what is coming in.
Not true. We are using averages. The equatorial area will be cooled and the poles will be warmed from conduction, convection, winds. When overall thermal balance is achieved, we will have an average temperature T . Double the density of the atmosphere, and we get T2.
There is no way around it. Density changes the average temperature, without GHGs
The temperature of a substance only reflects the amount of heat it is storing, proportional to its heat capacity. What you’re describing is the atmospheric science equivalent of a Ponzi scheme; you think that the process of moving heat around within an enclosed system will over time increase the amount of heat that the system stores.
No, the average temperature reflects the SB fact of T4 radiation. The heat loss rate varies with the density since the temperature distribution is different with the two densities.
Not true. If the atmosphere is actually transparent to IR (and visible), than it no more blocks outgoing radiation than it does incoming. Thus the radiative surface of the body becomes the solid surface and its temperature will assume the S-B balance (taking into accounts its emissivity). The atmosphere will not be heated or cooled except by convection from the solid surface, so once it reaches thermal equilibrium it may be discounted totally. Of course not even pure N2 is completely transparent to all frequencies and all matter, even gasses, above absolute zero radiates something.
Paul Blasé
“The atmosphere will not be heated or cooled except by convection from the solid surface, so once it reaches thermal equilibrium it may be discounted totally”
Quite correct. Thank you for understanding and agreeing with my main point which is that this process affects the temperature of the atmosphere just above the surface.
The point is not to show that the energy incoming and the LWIR outgoing (plus reflections) are in balance – we already know that from black-boxing the system. The important point is what the temperature of the air is under different conditions. Several correspondents, some just above, claim that the air temperature will be the same as the surface when there is no air. Extraordinary! Even NASA doesn’t get it right.
The whole point of the exercise is to speculate on the temperature of the air near the surface where we live in the presence or GHG’s – not so? Having make the incorrect claim that the air temperature without any GHG’s would be the SB temperature of the surface, they go on to claim that any heating of the air above the SB temperature is caused by greenhouse gases. Clearly, if in the absence of GHG’s, the surface has been heated to “equilibrium” as you called it, then the addition of GHG’s does not account for all the difference between the SB temperature -18 C and the current +15 C.
GHG’s can only account for a portion of it. I hold that the addition of the first few ppm of GHG’s cools the atmosphere (a lot). GHG’s cool radiatively. They also add back radiation to the surface. The new equilibrium in the presence of GHG’s will have a different air temperature and a different surface temperature.
If the IPCC cannot get the most fundamental aspects of atmospheric heating correct, how can the other speculations tell us something about the nature of the real world? Read what they say about GHG heating of 33 C. It is silly because it ignores the heating of the air by the surface prior to accounting for the GHG effect. Remember, the GHG effect is cooling direct from the atmosphere and back-radiating, not just the latter.
Crispin in Waterloo December 31, 2018 at 11:57 am
Not true. There will only be convective heating of the atmosphere only until such time as the lowest layer of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface. After that, since the two are at the same temperature there will be no heat flow.
I guess you missed the part about how the planet is evenly heated from all sides so there is no day or night.
w.
Ah, yes, the non physical model as proof. Nope. There is no such thing as a thousand suns giving uniform heating. We only find spinning planets on orbits around a sun. It’s time to bin this non physical concept.
ECB, it’s called a “thought experiment”. Einstein was famous for using them. They are invaluable for understanding things when we cannot do real experiments.
Should we “bin that non physical concept” of an elevator in space as well? Nope. Thought experiments are very useful.
Now, N&Z claim that their theory does NOT require GHGs to raise the temperature of the surface of a planet above the S-B temperature. My thought experiment proves that their claim is not possible. Without GHGs the only way for the planet to lose energy is radiation from the surface … and it cannot radiate more than it is receiving.
Does this apply to earth? Nope. It applies to the N&Z claim, and it shows that their claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. Q.E.D.
w.
A non physically based thought experiment proves nothing.
OK if you want a more realistic thought experiment let’s try a revolving atmosphere less planet with the same properties as the moon. At noon on the equator it will have a temperature ~390K at dawn it will be ~133K and at dusk ~163K. Add an atmosphere and the noon temperature of the surface will drop and the temperature on the nightside will rise due to conductive and convective heat transfer. Because the only mechanism of heat loss to space is radiation and the first law of thermodynamics the total heat loss rate is equal to the insolation. Consequently the average T^4 will be the same, the average T will be slightly different due to Holder’s inequality.
Willis:
That is a most creative way to avoid discussing the omitted direct heating of the air by the surface. The examination of the Zeller hypothesis should be conducted in a thought experiment which has day and night.
Kurt:
“To test this, you just hypothesize an atmosphere without GHGs, such that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy OUTWARD into space, and that all radiation out into space has to come from the surface of the planet.”
Correct – that it an essential part of any claim to be assessing the air temperature near the surface, with or without GHG’s. You will have noticed by now that NASA et al do not include it.
“Since the surface of the planet is at a first temperature at equilibrium with space without an atmosphere, it follows that the atmosphere per se cannot not heat the surface
That is true only if there are no GHG’s.
“…(e.g. by it’s mere existence independent of GHGs) because if it did, equilibrium would not be maintained at the boundary of the planet’s atmosphere with space.”
Now you stepped off the pier. GHG’s function in exactly the same manner as a half-silvered mirror. If you put a half silvered mirror around an infrared it increases the temperature inside the box until the output equals the input. That will only happen (equilibrium) once the temperature inside has risen. That is the “greenhouse effect”.
“The surface temperature would rise and more radiation would escape into space than what is coming in.”
Still true as long as there is no “half-silvered mirror”. All you have argued is that without GHG’s there is no greenhouse effect. We already knew that. As soon as your hot surface atmosphere bare planet gains at atmosphere (supposed pure argon) the “air” would be heated by the surface during the daytime and could not cool at night. The next day it would heat again and not cool. Et cetera.
I will post a refutation of Zeller separately.
“The awful implication of the correction for the influence of GHG’s is that in their absence, the air temperature would rise because it cannot cool radiatively. GHG’s not only heat, they cool. When it comes to the temperature of the atmosphere, its radiative cooling from convective heating has to be part of the explanation. It is missing.”
Sorry that’s incorrect.
Without GHGs, then the atmosphere would be completely transparent to LWIR exiting space.
Zero attenuation.
It would cool entirely by radiation from the surface.
Convection would not be needed.
“It would cool entirely by radiation from the surface”
No, it would cool ~partly~ by radiation from the surface. The other parts would be by convection and conduction. Are those parts negligible? I think not.
Suppose all the wind on the planet suddenly stopped and the atmosphere became a horrifying stillness… The temperature would rise very quickly, both the atmosphere and the ground.
Most of the energy in the atmosphere is moved around by the wind/convection, not radiation. Changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere by increasing the CO2 from 0.03% to 0.05% is simply not going to make any difference to those winds. At least, that’s my 2c of understanding.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/10/wind-an-important-forgotten-or-ignored-weather-variable/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/15/bad-news-for-wind-power-globally-winds-are-slowing/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/05/study-global-wind-speed-dropping-wind-farms-victim-of-atmospheric-stilling/
“The temperature would rise very quickly, both the atmosphere and the ground.”
You neglect the night side. Or if rotating, the night period.
At night the surface cools to space by radiation (convection stops) and winds still due frictional drag and stratification.
Come morning as the sun heats the ground it then has to warm out the surface inversion (cold air) that has formed overnight. Without the destabilisation of heating created by GHGs (back-radiated heating of the surface), then it would take just as long to warm out that inversion and hence allow convection, as it did to cool it … and then the surface cools again as the next night occurs.
The atmosphere would still have winds due to latitudinal deltaT (differential heating).
And hence some turbulent mixing.
But surface convection?
No, I don’t think so.
Yes, there is a night side which cause some things to happen. But, you are totally missing the point. I’m not talking about what causes winds and whether there would be any or not.
I’m talking about what the wind/convection does. Suppose there was no convection AT ALL (stopped somehow) ->the Earth would warm dramatically. The wind is a major factor in the distribution of heat around the planet. Changing the radiative properties is not going to significantly change this fact.
The ocean is The Greenhouse – captures solar radiation throughout a volume (top 100 metres)
It has very high specific heat content – it takes a lot of energy to heat water.
Nothing else comes close in the entire universe.
Via evaporation from its top surface it ‘gives’ captured energy to the atmospheric gases.
Simply = mechanical mixing
They, oxygen & nitrogen, have not only VERY low thermal conductivities but also VERY low emissivities.
The low emissivity means they can ‘support’, ‘have’, ‘maintain’, ‘store’, ‘be at’ elevated temperature while radiating *very* small amounts of energy.
Where Dr Spencer goes wrong…..
From here:
https://www.omega.com/technical-learning/infrared-temperature-measurement-theory-application.html
(Does he REALLY expect us to believe that a fluffy white cloud, at (say) 2000 metres high in a blue sky is at a temperature of 41 degC? What happened to Lapse Rate – is he saying that the ground directly beneath that cloud is at 60+ degC?)
It goes on:
And the emissivity of oxygen/nitrogen is vanishingly small, like that of silver or aluminium – see my highlight in the above.
Where does that leave your Watts/sqm Boltzmann power calculations?
The temperature is high but the power is low. Very low
From here:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
IOW, CO2 would have a cooling effect, if any.
They were right the first time, back in the 70’s.
Ammonia has a higher specific heat than water, as does liquid lithium, and helium.
Hydrogen has far higher SH.
Yes, but not a lot of that on Earth.
I was responding to this statement:
“It has very high specific heat content – it takes a lot of energy to heat water.
Nothing else comes close in the entire universe.”
Recall that this is, at it most basic level, a science site.
The statement was wrong.
Just sayin’.
The temperature of the base of the cloud is the temperature of the Lifted Condensation Level (LCL) and it is what it is. You should not presume to know what the height of the cloud is. Also, BTW, it is 41 deg Fahrenheit not Celsius.
If in case this may help.
In simpleton argument, “green house effect” is wrongly conceived… or so do I consider it, as at this point in time. 🙂
Officially it consist strictly as in the consideration that RF and “radiation effect outcome” (like either warming or cooling)
in climate happens to be or is binary or a bipolar relation structure.
And it clearly seems not to be that way or the case in hand…
It is or it seems to be more like a Tri-Polar relation in the reality, actually.
Where RF contributes to the radiation imbalance,but it is not the only contribution to radiation imbalance.
The other one, which has no name to be addressed as yet, is a radiation potential contributing to the radiation imbalance… due simply of the fact, of the atmospheric thermal expansion or atmospheric thermal variation, as a result of the atmosphere’s volume and surface expansion, or variation…
due to the thermal variation .
The “green house effect” the radiation effect in climate depends in both these factors, RF and thermal expansion of the atmosphere, a Tri-Polar relation so to speak, or claim.
The radiation effect it will contribute to add on in warming or a gain in heat content in the system, only if both factors contribute to it…in synchronicity.
You have one of them only contributing when the other is not, completely outside the clause of synchronicity among;
then the “green house effect” in this case means loss of heat content from the earth system…
Where wider the departing from this synchronicity, higher the thermal loss from the system.
In this explanation given here, about the GH perception, in a Tri-Polar relation, the radiation imbalance could very well trigger a significant thermal heat loss from the system, if it happens to increase solely due to only one of the factors, which ever that be, either RF,,, or the thermal expansion (or thermal variation of atmosphere)…
Simply put, the increase of “sunshine potential” aka what we consider as GH effect, could and would lead to a
condition of a significant Earth’s negative energy balance, when only influenced by one of the factors that
contributes to it (ether that being the RF or the thermal variation of the atmosphere)… where GH effect increasing, would lead to loss or cooling, not a gain or warming.
Tri-Polar structures or Tri-Polar functions work and behave in a given system, in far much more complex and very much different ways than the bipolar ones…usually.
Sorry if this a bit long, and hopefully the point made may be understood, regardless of it being subject
to be wrong, or found wrong.
Thank you Anthony…and happy new year to you…and any one else… 🙂
cheers
The disagreement is not with mechanism, but with effect, or rather effectiveness.
Enter citizen scientist Willis Eschenbach, a frequent contributor at Wattsupwiththat.com, who back in 2012 posted there a “proof” that Nikolov was wrong. The simplicity of the proof makes it powerful, indeed. I don’t know why I did not notice it at the time. My apologies to Willis.
Basically, the proof starts with the simplified case of the average planetary temperature without an atmosphere, which can be calculated using a single equation (the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). Conceptually, …
This is already unnecessarily complicated.
What needs an answer first before anything else is this really simple question.
Zeller and Nikolov state simply that the surface atmospheric temperature on all planets can be calculated from atmospheric pressure (mass of the atmosphere) and gravity (mass of the planet) alone.
IS THIS TRUE?
Or not.
It’s really simple – three columns of numbers.
Does anyone have the answers this?
Any discussion without starting at this question is a waste of time and a distraction.
Is it true? Read “The Mystery of Equation 8“. It is true but meaningless, because it is a result of “overfitting”.
w.
If it is true, then atmospheric and planetary mass alone explain surface atmospheric temperature. (Distance from the sun also presumably plays a role.)
Thus there is no role for atmospheric composition, it doesn’t matter if it is nitrogen or ammonia or CO2 or whatever.
Also there is no role for radiative effects which are then shown to always equalise and come out in the wash.
It’s game over. Zeller and Nikolov are correct.
“It’s game over. Zeller and Nikolov are correct.”
Even without mentioning any numbers.
BTW, “Tasfay Martinov” is a fake name.
Yes, about half the names here are fake. I’ve also posted as:
phlogiston
belousov
Tatonka Chesli (very briefly)
phil salmon (my actual name)
ptolemy2
Tasfay Martinov
Just a bit of fun.
First amendment anyone?
Tasfay Martinov January 1, 2019 at 1:52 am
I can understand you not having the balls to post under your own name. But don’t try to pass off posting under a half-dozen names as “a bit of fun”. It is a slimy trick intended to deceive. It allows you to post things and then not take responsibility for them, which is a cowardly act.
You just canceled your vote with me.
Bye …
w.
Willis
Your response to my transparency is to call me slimy and a coward. Fine. But denying what is in reality a very thin web anonymity would haves chilling effect on free speech. As you can see I don’t hide who I am to anyone interested. Call me what you like, but web anonymity is a choice that for now is backed by law and something that many find valuable.
Try to rely more on force of argument and less on bullying and coercion. It’s what you say, not who you are, that should matter.
Phil.
Lest you should think this is me Willis, it is not!
And the “compression heating” quote in the lead is deliberate fake news, a CNN specialty, or more like Spiegel just this week.
Yet it goes back to Aristotle the poisoner, a long tradition….
Tasfay Martinov
January 1, 2019 at 1:52 am
————–
I do like your choice of “ptolemy2”, really 🙂
Nick
I said “if”. I don’t have the numbers to hand. I get the impression that Willis and others are not disputing Z&N’s simple mathematical proposal but engaging in a debate about mechanisms and explanations. See my post below about Popper and deduction / induction.
Unfortunately it is not true and easy to prove wrong and there are a hundred ways to skin this cat because it is “not even wrong”.
“It’s game over. Zeller and Nikolov are correct.”
did you check the data? like the data they used for the moon ( actually amodel)
or the data used for the earth ( not correct as well)
or the data they ignored?
Tasfay Martinov
Consider what the temperature of Venus would be if it were located beyond the orbit of Pluto. I cannot imagine that it would be as warm as it is close to the sun. The heat has to come from somewhere, and the inverse-square law says that a body close to a heat source will receive much more heat than one at a great distance.
Sorry, I’m just a dumb high school guy plus a few years of life so I can only think in simple terms. Help me out.
Some where I heard about PVT. Would converting liquids and solids (oil, coal, limestone to cement) into gasses add heat to the atmosphere? Does this increase volume? Is the volume limited by gravity? Does it expand as it gets warmer? Are these materials not made with energy from the sun then conserved until burned?
In any case I got a kick out of that linked article: Elect more Democrats or we are all doomed.
I think the answer to all of your questions is yes, except for perhaps there are many exceptions to the last question.
It is only a proof to someone who understands basic physics. You cannot explain heat and material balances to a dog.
Tom
I’ve explained heat and material balances to my dog many times. She watches me intently the whole time. But, I can tell by her body language that what she is thinking is, “When do I get the treat?”
I am not sure if this will add to the argument, but I did an experiment with my physics classes a couple years back to support (or refute) Willis’ claims. Perhaps there is something I am missing about this experiment.
I wanted to simulate a vertical column of air molecules. Since all the horizontal motion cancels, I only needed to worry about vertical motion. I set up a small airtrack (near frictionless sliders on a linear track) on a very slight incline, and placed a series of sliders on the track representing molecules. I gave each a small amount of energy at random positions and allowed them to bounce around. Once the system was in equilibrium, the molecules at the bottom of the track moved faster than the ones at the top.
Next, I put more sliders on the track, put them in the same relative positions (basically increasing the density of sliders), and then allowed them to bounce around. When equilibrium was reached, the sliders at the bottom were moving faster than before, and the height that the top slider reached was higher than in the first experiment. However, when I repeated this by placing sliders at the bottom (with no initial gravitational energy), I did not see the corresponding increase in velocity at the bottom, and height at the top.
Next, I tried to simulate the column of air being energized from the bottom by using a drill with an irregular shaped spool at the bottom, to strike the lowest slider with small amounts of “random” energy, 10 seconds on, 10 seconds off (day and night). There are small frictional losses in the sliders, which may represent energy losses to space. I used one slider, four sliders, then 8 sliders to see if there was any difference. With around the same amount of power being added to the system, the more sliders I added, the more speed the “atmosphere” molecules had at the bottom, and the higher the top slider would bounce. This was true if I started all the sliders at rest on the spool or if I started them in random positions along the slider (starting them off with gravitational potential energy).
Now, to me, this suggests that the mass of the atmosphere would impact the temperature at the surface, independent of GHG. Compression also does not need to be invoked to explain this either. And yet, the oceans also behave as a fluid. Why do the oceans not exhibit a lapse rate? It would seem that my experiment should also be valid for molecules of a vertical column of liquid, but they don’t.
Any insight would be appreciated. I’m having a hard time puzzling out my results.
Thanks
Water is incompressible, so it does not undergo changes in volume as the pressure changes, at least not enough to make much difference.
It is not that air is a fluid that causes compressional heating, but that it is a gas.
Same number of molecules in a smaller volume with the same total internal energy means they must move faster and are thus hotter.
If you had taken physical chemistry you would have studied this in detail.
Here is a place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and have taken graduate thermo, and of course undergrad PCHEM. This is a about the apparent temperature changes with height in a column of fluid, not the temperature of the entire batch. Sorry to have confused you, my description above was brief.
I am not in the least bit confused.
You asked why the ocean, being a fluid, does not have a lapse rate like the atmosphere.
Consider that PV=nRT is the ideal gas law, not the ideal fluid law.
PV= nRT is an energy balance and deals with the average states of the entire mass of gas, not the distribution of temperatures within a volume.
?
Well then consider that using the example of the ocean having no lapse rate falsifies your hypothesis that compression has nothing to do with it.
Basically, N&Z have made the grade school error of postulating a perpetual motion machine. Compress some gas, use the heat created, but the heat is still there! Great!
Is that really what NZ say?
Don132
Stephen Wilde December 31, 2018 at 11:22 am
As far as I know this is simply NOT true. If there are ongoing non-radiative processes (conduction/convection), they simply lower the object’s temperature … but whatever the lower temperature resulting from conduction/convetion might be, the S-B equation accurately calculates the radiation coming from the object at that temperature.
w.
It’s nice to see that W agrees that a non GHG atmosphere will lower the surface temperature.
EdB, since I have NEVER denied that GHGs raise the surface temperature, I have no clue what you are referring to.
w.
Willis,
I can tell that you have not read the description of the process that I linked to. You should do so.
Stephen, I can tell that you have not answered the question. I’ve posted it below. Give it your best shot.
w.
If the temperature was pressure related, wouldn’t the temperature be even all over the earth? Why then are the poles cold and the equator hot?
Also, if the temperature was pressure related, why does the air cool when a cloud goes overhead?
No, the incident radiation is less at the Poles because of the angle it hits the earth. Equator maximum and poles minimum
Very informative article. I unlearned something I thought I knew and while I may not be any smarter, I think I am now less ignorant. WUWT is always a must read.
If I read that right, there is no need for freon-based air conditioning is a Zeller-Nikolov world, as it just doesn’t work.
A quick glance at comments tells me we seem to be talking at cross-purposes.
Why would an atmosphere that absorbs heat from the surface from conduction/convection with the surface (and not, note, by “compressive heating”) necessarily lead to more radiation from the surface? Atmospheric heat isn’t adding heat to the surface, is it, if it isn’t radiating to the surface? Might it be slowing radiative heat loss by the surface … kinda like, ummm, let’s see… GHGs?
I’m happy to see supporters of N-Z.
Glad to see everyone is staying civil. It’s a slippery slope once we start calling names. We can all just have little fun with this and try to puzzle it out without assuming that the person who doesn’t understand us is an utter ass and doesn’t know jack.
I’ll have more to say when I have time to read carefully.
Happy New Year, All.
Don132
Referring to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.
That is just flat ridiculous.
NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a frozen ice-covered ball.
That is just flat ridiculous^2.
Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.14, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark. (Nikolov & Kramm)
And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 25% to 40% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 20 to 30 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6466699347852611584
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368
https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
With 30 % albedo: 957.6 W/m^2, 360.5 K, 87.5 C, 189.5 F
With 14% albedo: 1,176.5 W/m^2, 379.5 K, 106.5 C, 223.8 F
With 0% albedo: 1,367.5 W/m^2, 394.0 K, 121.0 C, 250.0 F
I’m a layman in this subject.
I understand how force applied to a gas, say in a pump, will heat it and gravity is a force.
I also understand how some gases react to IR radiation by absorbing and emitting it.
I can’t see how the two theories discussed here are mutually-exclusive.
I’m probably wrong though.
A planet w/o an atmosphere will have one side very hot and the other very cold, unless it spin rapidly by respect of its heating star. Since SB equation is to the fourth power, the hot side will radiate a lot. So it is logical that w/o an atmosphere, a planet will radiate much more for the same globally averaged temperature than one with an atmosphere that will smooth the min max temprerature.
Has anyone ever plotted the average global air pressure with time? How does that correlate with the average temperature?
And does P1V1T1 still equal P2V2T2?
Not for the atmosphere, no.
The atmosphere is not a homogeneous entity contained in a box.
It’s T, P and density vary in 3D throughout it
Additionally Charles’s law (which comprises the Ideal gas law), states that, for a given mass of an ideal gas at constant pressure, the volume is directly proportional to its absolute temperature, assuming in a closed system.
The atmosphere is not closed.
It is free to expand into space. (V can change)
It can exchange mass into/out of the system.
Then why is it possible to calculate the temperature of a point on the Earth’s surface based on incoming UV radiation and absorptivity/emissivity properties only, with no reference to downwelling IR radiation? How then is it possible to calculate the temperature profile of the atmosphere again with no reference to downwelling IR? If there is the claimed downwelling IR energy that is in excess of the energy received from the sun and which heats the solid and liquid surface of the earth, why can’t we recover it for nice free energy? Why is it that lines of constant temperature are also approximately isobars (snow line), why Jericho is warmer that Jerusalem and death valley warmer than everywhere else in the UK (based on elevation/pressure?). When I can see why, I’ll accept that the Greenhouse effect is correct and the atmospheric effect incorrect, I hope that somebody can help me.
Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.
Wrong – this WADR is dysfunctional epistemology and a corrective dose of Karl Popper is needed.
You are confusing and mixing the conjecture with its mechanistic explanation. The conjecture is the conjecture. The explanation is something else.
Z&N’s conjecture is:
“Atmospheric surface temperature can be simply derived from (1) solar irradiation and (2) atmospheric pressure, only.”
The Popperian test of this conjecture is simple – do the arithmetic, is it true or not – and it is risky? If it were not true it would be easily and quickly shown not to be true. A Popperian refutation.
But there is no refutation. The maths holds up and the claimed relationship is true.
So the conjecture has survived a true objective and risky test.
Willis’ claimed refutation argument collapses epistemologically because it is inductive and avoids the simple deductive question of conjecture-testing. The refutation argument creates a straw man. It says, “here is the mechanistic explanation that I think Z&N propose for their observation and here’s why that explanation is false.”
No – that radiative explanation is Willis’, not Z&N’s. It is a straw man. You can’t bring in explanation when trying to refute a conjecture. It’s much simpler and logically cleaner than that. We propose that A1.B.1/C1 = A2.B2/C2. It’s either true or not, yes or no.
The question of explanation is a separate question from the conjecture itself. You can’t refute conjecture by saying “here’s a possible explanation for the conjure which is false”. This only shows that the refuter is wrong, not the conjecturer.
Conjecture-refutation is deductive, explanation crosses into the territory of inductive. Popper, following Hume, showed that the truth-finding process of science can only be deductive. He went as far as to say “there are no inductive inferences”. Which is as much as to say “there are no climate computer simulations”.
How can Z&N’s conjecture – mathematically not refuted so still in play – be explained? That is our problem. Not theirs. A “problem” for those who are curious, i.e. for true scientists.
What Z&N have given us is an observation, an empirical mini-law. Surface gas temperature is related to solar irradiation and gravitational pressure. How can it make sense thermodynamically? Find out – if you want to achieve something worthwhile as a scientist. But don’t confuse observation with explanation, deductive with inductive.
For example, Weggener proposed the conjecture that continents move, separating and colliding. His conjecture was opposed for the wrong (Popperian) reason. It’s rejection was inductive, not deductive. The opposing argument was in the end one of smallness of imagination and courage. It said – we can’t possibly imagine any mechanism for continents drifting, so we won’t take seriously the (albeit circumstantial) evidence and argument for it.
Weggener was right, and acceptance of his theory which is now the foundation of geology was delayed half a century by blurred epistemology, confusing deduction with induction, and deficient imagination.
Today, accepting a conjecture that runs counter to CAGW requires adherence to strict Popperian epistemology – is it refutable? If so, is it refuted or not? However it also requires imagination and almost unimaginable courage in the political environment of climate science.
There was a mountain of physical evidence for the continents drifting, e.g. that South America was once joined to Africa.
It was not merely circumstantial evidence.
Popper of the Mont Pelerin Society, Aristotle’s spawn, is definitely not the rule.
Edgar Allan Poe, another poet, knew this too – Kant of the creeping and crawling inductive-deductive method, who Can’t soar to scientific discovery – silly amphibians! (Mellonta Tauta, Eureka).
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/eureka.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/POE/mellonta.html :
Two of Aries Tottle’s disciples were Neuclid and Cant, until the Hog preached something Baconian.
Before claiming to know the “scientific method”, have a look at Poe, Heine, and then wonder how ye missed it.
Some fool at Paris in 1927 tried to smear Einstein as a Kant-ian – response : Chacun a son Quant-à-soi. He was the only objector to the Copenhagen gang, never gave in, even being called a antediluvian.
Planck’s Quantum is not an amphibian “inductive-deductive” Baconian creeping and crawling – the scientific method of discovery is definitely not from jellyfish, not trilobites.
Quantum theory came from a straightforward deductive observation – photoelectric emitted photons had discreet, not continuous energy.
Yes on a cake of deductive you can have inductive icing and even an inductive cherry or two.
After all, conjectures have to come from somewhere.
I actually agree with your exposure of the straw dog above.
Most mechanistic explanations make the pair-wise mistake, such as Newton’s gravitational force thought experiment involving centripetal acceleration. The magic of saying imagine the sun removed and the planet would fly off is the give away, but the real exposure then is the famous 3 body problem.
Where is the error there? It is insidious, widespread, turning up again here.
Conjectures do not come from the data, neither inductively nor deductively. Take Planck’s h (help) idea – nowhere in the data with a calculated horrible UV infinity (BB power spectrum) is such a tiny constant to be found nor even a discreet process. Quantum theory came from the resolution of that infinity; Einstein confirmed it later with the Photo Electric conjecture.
DeBroglie really let the cat out of the bag with his quantum pilot waves. Bohm’s rediscovery of these waves refuted von Neumann’s “impossibility proof” showing how an insidious apparently harmless extra assumption was used as a straw dog. See J.S. Bell on that subject.
I agree but we need at least one more planet or moon with data to prove the hypothesis. Willis has correctly pointed out the paucity of data points to validate the NZ curve. I give them high marks for a simpler method, and I derived their parameterized equations. That’s a start for me.
I look forward to hearing more.
I agree.
And Happy New Year everyone!
Not sure I understand why the slowing of radiative heat loss by atmospheric GHGs wouldn’t violate any laws, but that a slowing of heat loss through an atmospheric density that retains heat would.
Let me rephrase one of the paragraphs in the top post:
“Significantly, Willis pointed out that if [greenhouse gases are] what raises the [surface] temperature above the S-B value, as the [radiative greenhouse] theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing [greenhouse gases] alone.”
Am I missing something?
Don132
Would it not violate the laws of physics if a dense surface atmosphere did NOT absorb heat from a surface warmed by the sun?
Where is the greenhouse effect? Where is the greenhouse? Are not the oceans significant stores of “greenhouse” energy? Would they not warm an atmosphere even in the absence of GHGs, if such a thing were possible on a water planet?
Nothing is as simple as it seems but sometimes we assume it’s simple.
Don132
The only people that seem to be assuming the atmosphere is simple are the warmistas, when they claim that CO2 is the thermostat of the Earths atmosphere.
Disappointing that after so many years here at WUWT, something as simple and basic as radiative GHE is not well understood or accepted by all, and that ‘embarassing’ alternative theories still abound to be espoused here.
The GHE is NOT warming; all warming comes from inbound solar radiation (lets skip the de minimus volcanic argument powered by radioactive decay in Earths core).
The GHE is a transient absence of eqivalent offsetting IR cooling to space. Convection and
conduction can move solar generated heat around, but by definition cannot shed it back to space. The most that convection can do is transport some heat above the effective radiating level (ERL) where the GHG IR scattering ‘fog’ clears sufficiently for IR to reach space. (Think towering thunderstorms).We know that ERL ‘height’ from the temperature/altitude lapse rate measured by radiosondes, and the ‘temperature’ of the escaping IR frequency as measured by satellites.
That transient absence of radiative cooling is caused by GHG, the existence of which was experimentally shown in 1859 by John Tyndall. Transient, because in the presence of any added amount of GHG, temperature will rise until sufficient additional offsetting IR materializes.
Dr Spencers backradiation sensor does not show that backradiation ‘warms’. It evidences the IR scattering by GHG that proves the loss of IR cooling that comprises the GHE. Hence his comment about not violating the second thermo law.
Greenhouse gases radiate. The question is, is their activity enough to raise the temperature of the earth’s surface above the blackbody calculation?
No one denies radiative effects. But to me and many others, it is the atmospheric greenhouse effect proposed by NZ and Stephen Wilde and others that makes possible, or that allows for, the radiative effects to occur. But those radiative effects are not powerful enough to warm the planet sufficiently; for that to happen an atmosphere dense enough to retain heat from land and oceans warmed by the sun is required. Atmospheric density is the big player, not greenhouse gases. That is the essential paradigm proposed by NZ but bastardized by those who suppose that they’re talking about compressive heating.
Don132
Hey Don, if/when you work through the actual physics of Wilde and his ilk, you will realize their errors.
BTW, NZ actually does suppose compressive heating.
“Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! Instead, it enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision. This relative enhancement only manifests as an actual energy in the presence of external heating.”
–Nikolov and Zeller
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309651389_Unified_Theory_of_Climate_-_Expanding_the_Concept_of_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Using_Thermodynamic_Principles_Implications_for_Predicting_Future_Climate_Change
Summary: the atmosphere is most dense at the surface, and thus most of the atmospheric heat is necessarily concentrated at the surface. It is so with or without GHGs. How many times are we going to accuse NZ of saying things they don’t, just so we can “prove” them wrong?
Rud Istvan, I may be wrong. Please show me where NZ support compressive heating, such as happens when a bicycle tire is blown up. My understanding is that it’s all about atmospheric density, and a lot of people don’t seem to get it.
Don132
It is amazing how many extra “harmless” assumptions are attributed and then attacked. Looks like standard practice – it is Kant in action (even if not realized).
Kant attacked “pure reason” which does not in fact exist, then practical reason, consensus, which does.
Any physical conjecture must conform to sufficient creative reason first. Those that Kan’t follow the Critique (colloquially straw-dog).
“Greenhouse gases radiate.”
Don’t all atmospheric gases radiate?
Feynman had these ideas, sound familiar?
https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Oh great, I was just on the verge of declaring Willis the winner of this unsettled science debate and you had to ahead and throw Feynman into the equation……..
You do know that references to Principia-scientific are banned here?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/policy/
“For the same reasons as the absurd topics listed above, references to the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Book and subsequent group “Principia Scientific” which have the misguided idea that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, and have elevated that idea into active zealotry, WUWT is a “Slayer Free Zone”. There are other blogs which will discuss this topic, take that commentary there.”
if you put in a sprinkler system , open the doors and windows mirroring the real world – what green house effect!
Yes PSI are supposed to be these really bad people. But oddly what they say on that page seems to make sense. Feynman seems to be talking sense.
Slightly skeptical December 31, 2018 at 2:22 pm
No, Feynman did NOT have these ideas. However, the idiots at Principia Scientific THINK he did. They say:
All that that shows is that the clowns over at P-S don’t understand the difference between work and energy.
w.
Feynman was notorious for deriving in his own way the same physics observations/predictions as the main stream theories he was late in accepting, as the quark model or QCD . I have sat through lectures in international settings where he did exactly that, and one had to tie ones brain in knots to follow, and really not see the reason of not sticking with the earlier mainstream version. He was correct in his mathematics, being Feynman of course. I know it is not worth my effort to check carefully the overlaps between the green house model and Feynman’s version.
.
Simply dismissing it [the NZ argument] in a judgemental one liner is even “wronger”.
.
I wonder why? Could it be that everyone is not convinced that “it’s just wrong”?
.
Fooled the peer-review process how? Exactly how was the process fooled? How did simply using different names fool the process of receiving a paper and evaluating it fairly? Did a change of names somehow disable the reviewer’s mental capacity to understand what they were reading? Did it render them blind? Did it give them intestinal issues to the point that they could not sit long enough to ingest and evaluate the paper?
Sorry, but this just seems way too unforgiving. Let’s not forget that non-popular ideas in this arena are seldom met with receptive arms, especially when those arms know the names of people putting forth the ideas, and, by knowing names, those arms can blacklist and reject the ideas and keep the ideas out of view, for no other reason than the ideas differ radically from the norm.
“Professional no-no”? … “peer review process”? … Please. What’s professional about the atmosphere in which such a paper was presented? You call the attitude of blacklisting known divergent thinkers, “professional”? Isn’t this something that WUWT frowns upon? I would think that we would have more understanding for resorting to unprofessional tactics in this … [clear throat] … “professional” publishing arena. Such gorilla tactics are not unwarranted.
And as much as WUWT has dissed the “peer review” process, when it comes to climate science, I would think that we would be even more understanding of this supposed “fake name” stunt.
If lots of people know who you are, and, knowing this, they automatically reject anything you might submit, then is using a “fake name” really so unforgivable, in order to get your work seen? I think not. In any other arena, this might be a “professional no-no”. But, in this one (the climate science arena) … I dunno.
I’m delighted to see physicists use humor – they simply do not care about the raging climate brawl and got off-planet for further research. They have no problem with GCR’s either. And they used NASA data, imagine that!
Now I wonder about the ~1300 exoplanets – is there enough data to check N-Z ? It looks like we only need exo-solar distance, mass and atmospheric spectra.
Seems like folks still aren’t getting it. Let me see if I can simplify it even more.
A blackbody planet with no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has only one thing in the entire system that can absorb energy from outside the system—the surface.
It also has only one thing in the whole system that can lose energy back to space—the surface.
THEREFORE: the surface MUST radiate the amount that it receives, and therefore it cannot be warmed by ANY such proposed atmosphere-based process—whether said process is based on pressure or lapse rate or gravity or whatever. Over time, the surface CANNOT radiate more than it is receiving, period.
So please, all of the explanations about lapse rates and compression of gases and conduction and convection are missing the point—the surface can only radiate the amount that it receives, not more and not less. Thus in the system I described, none of those processes can raise the average temperature of the surface.
w.
“A blackbody planet with no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has only one thing in the entire system that can absorb energy from outside the system—the surface.
It also has only one thing in the whole system that can lose energy back to space—the surface.”
Yep, exactly so.
All gases radiate at some level, just tiny compared to what CO2 can do. Otherwise, how does spectrography work?
Not all gases radiate in the thermal longwave (IR) range.
w.
It doesn’t matter what all gases do. Nitrogen and oxygen (99% of the atmosphere) do radiate infrared.
icisil January 1, 2019 at 6:56 am
No, basically they N2 and O2 do NOT radiate IR. That’s why they are not called “greenhouse gases”. Symmetrical diatomic molecules can only absorb or radiate infrared in very special circumstances. The overwhelming majority of the time they don’t do either.
Best regards,
w.
At standard temperature and pressure, most atmospheric gases neither absorb nor radiate at visible wavelengths. It is a property that permits transparency. Anything that can emit can also absorb and the atmosphere would not be transparent.
“Not all gases radiate in the thermal longwave (IR) range.
w.”
Here’s a calculation of the infrared cooling rate of a hypothetical 1 meter sphere of nitrogen at 300K:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/163876/thermal-radiation-of-a-nitrogen-sphere
This study finds that due to the absorption bands of O2 and N2:
‘for dry atmospheric situations like over the Antarctic continent the effect of O2 and N2 even reach up to 80% of the influence of CH4’
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
Thanks, Ulric. I’ve said before that O2 and N2 are very weak absorbers/radiators of thermal infrared. They can only do that if the photo hits while they are colliding with another molecule.
You first link merely ASSUMES that N2 is a perfect blackbody. Fail.
The second one is accurate. It says:
So globally, O2 absorbs/radiates A TENTH OF A WATT/M2 and N2 absorbs TWO TENTHS OF A WATT/M2.
This is despite the fact that O2 and N2 together make up 99% of the atmosphere … like I said, they are very, very weak absorbers. As a result, they are generally ignored in greenhouse calculations.
w.
A blackbody planet with no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has only one thing in the entire system that can absorb energy from outside the system—the surface.
All gassed absorb and radiate heat energy.
All gasses are greenhouse gasses.
How can any gas not interact with solar radiation?
http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/12/real-world-spectral-measurements-show-the-greenhouse-theory-is-wrong-all-gases-are-ghgs/
Tasfay Martinov December 31, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Not true. Monatomic gases (argon, neon, etc) neither absorb nor radiate thermal (longwave) radiation. And symmetrical diatomic gases (O2, N2) can only do so if the radiation strikes them just when they have been hit by another molecule.
Oh, please. Why do you think that scientists divide gases into GHGs and non-GHGs?
By being a monatomic gas …
Do some homework, please, you are embarrassing yourself.
w.
Willis
Are you telling us that the noble gases have an emissivity of zero? It is going to take a while to get my head wrapped around that. I thought that all material things above absolute zero radiated according to the 4th power of the temperature.
Yep, the noble gases have zero emissivity. And N2 and O2 have almost zero emissivity.
All SOLID things above absolute zero radiate according to the 4th power law. But not monatomic gases.
w.
Willis
OK I get it.
So the 399/400 ths of the atmosphere that are not CO2 are essentially dark matter.
And when astronomers do absorption spectroscopy of distant stars and gas clouds, the only thing they ever detect is CO2.
Right?
Let say that except for Raman effect (very small), non net electrical dipole molecules are not radiatives in vibrational and rotational modes (long wave IR).
“The simplest method is to heat the sample to a high temperature, after which the excitations are produced by collisions between the sample atoms.”
The key word is “hot”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
Willis … I won’t dispute that you are correct about NZ and pressure and all that, but … a black body ain’t earth. Specifically, the earth Is uniquely situated at a point, with an atmosphere that filters the energy, such that water exist in all three forms. Water acts as a heat capacitor. So do GHGs, but the joules of heat that can be stored in CO2 simply is minuscule because it’s absorption is limited by wavelength.
As such, I reject the NZ model, but I also reject that the GHG theory is capable of much either if you take water out of the equation. Water is the key. Water has the capacity to store heat for longer periods of time, clouds have the ability to limit or increase solar input to any given point, water is a greenhouse gas, but because it exist in all three states here on earth, it functions very differently from a gas like CO2.
I remember the early sun model published by the Stanford guys ….. GHGs other than water were not relevant. It’s simple as that.
What the oversimplified explanation fails to account for is the presence of an atmosphere that is warmed primarily by moist convection, not by LWIR radiation. Thus the surface loses heat not by radiation alone and GHGs provide only an ANCILLARY means of STORING thermal energy in the atmosphere.
That stored energy (which is NOT confined to the “radiationally active” constituents) is what raises the temperature, just as stored water behind a dam increases the pressure driving the flow-though plume of water. As long as outflow of energy balances the system inflow on a planetary basis, no violation of conservation of energy is necessary to explain the higher surface temperatures. On the contrary, positing the levels of LWIR exchange at the surface seen in popular climate cartoons requires wholly impossible power-production by the atmosphere. It’s simply not a radiation-only problem!
BTW, surfaces being mass-less, two-dimensional entities can only pass through, but not absorb or store, energy. Let’s not carry such aphysical nonsense into the New Year.
1sky1 December 31, 2018 at 4:22 pm
1sky1, it is a thought experiment. I specified no greenhouse gases … so there is no “moist convection”. It is not designed to replicate the earth. It is designed to show, and it does indeed show, that N&Z’s claim that some pressure related phenomenon or other can heat the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases is a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Period.
w.
Willis,
Even with a radiatively inert atmosphere there will still be a lapse rate slope due to decreasing density with height.
Convective overturning cannot be prevented due to uneven surface heating.
Something has to fuel such continuing convective overturning and if all surface heat were radiated to space the atmosphere would fall to the ground.
It is true that once an atmosphere is in place there is no further net energy exchange from surface to atmosphere but heat energy is still required at the surface to hold it suspended off the surface and that is the mass induced greenhouse effect.
Your ‘proof’ is fatally flawed.
atmosphere but heat energy is still required at the surface to hold it suspended off the surface and that is the mass induced greenhouse effect
No, that energy comes from the sun. Turn off the sun and the atmosphere falls to the ground as it radiates away its heat.
So we have the best energy from the sun holding the atmosphere up and the gravity vector holding it down. There’s your squeeze play heating the atmosphere on venus, compressing it every delta t.
Leif
Of course it would and the initial energy required to suspend the atmosphere off the originally came from the sun via conduction from surface to air during the formation process.
initial energy required to suspend the atmosphere off the originally came from the sun
It comes from the sun at all times as we speak, no ‘initial’ or ‘original’ nonsense involved.
Leif,
I do not see your point.
Hi Willis, it’s amazing that we get all this nonsense rearing its ugly head again, I thought we’d put it to bed last time! As I recall both Robert Brown and I got banned on another site for having the temerity to prove it wrong!
As regarding a planet without an atmosphere illuminated by a constant sun and with a constant albedo will achieve a constant surface temperature distribution and will reflect/emit the same energy flux as it receives. Add an non-absorbing atmosphere and some heat will be transferred to the atmosphere, this of course means that the surface temperature will decrease and the emission by the surface will decrease by a corresponding amount. This will continue until the energy held in the atmosphere stabilizes (it can’t be lost to space). The surface will then have to heat up because no more heat will be lost to the atmosphere. The system will eventually stabilize at the same surface temperature as before the atmosphere was added. Over time the difference will be that the planet will have emitted less energy to space than it has received by the amount held in the atmosphere. The only effect pressure would have would be to change the amount a energy stored in the atmosphere
Phil
Pressure is related to atmospheric mass plus gravitational force and you concede that pressure changes the amount of energy stored.
My point is that the stored energy is not heat. It is potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.
Furthermore that potential energy is constantly being created from kinetic energy (heat) in ascending air and converted back to kinetic energy (heat) in descending air in a never ending recycling process which is independent of the throughput of solar energy in and out.
That independent process requires its own discrete energy source at the surface so the system can never stabilise at the same surface temperature as before the atmosphere was added.
So according to you the planet surface in the presence of a non-radiative atmosphere will be colder than in the absence of an atmosphere.
Phil
That is not said or implied in any of my words as far as I know.
Total absence of GHGs does not negate conduction into the surface boundary layer and subsequent dry convection. In fact, it curtails the ability of the atmosphere to radiate LWIR to space. Nor is the well-known phenomenon of adiabatic heating (q.v.) any “violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.” What indeed has been shown is that failure to understand all of the mechanisms of heat transfer (see, e.g. Hofmeister’s recent monograph) leads to gross physical misconceptions emblematic of the self-promoting enterprise of “climate science.”
You’re getting warmer;-))
The surface cannot radiate more to space than it is receiving but it can store additional energy that is then used to fuel ongoing convective overturning.
Viewed from space the whole system will still comply with S-B but the surface will be warmer than S-B.
A single unit of surface heat cannot be in two places at once. It will either be radiated to space or be involved in a continuing net zero exchange with the atmosphere.
Willis
You said, “…the surface can only radiate the amount that it receives, not more and NOT LESS.” Is that what you really intended to say? Consider that most of the energy the Earth receives in in the visible region, with the peak at green light. That light passes through the atmosphere largely unobstructed by the gases, albeit nominally 30% gets reflected before reaching the surface. The light that reaches the surface is either reflected or absorbed. That which is absorbed increases the temperature. However, since the surface of the Earth is MUCH cooler than the sun, it radiates principally in the IR region. If the temperature of Earth was stable, it would imply that the incoming radiation absorbed was equal to the outgoing. However, if and when there is an imbalance, the Earth will cool or heat accordingly. That is, your statement is only true for an Earth that is in energy equilibrium. But, it is capable of being out of equilibrium.
I do not see disagreement over this statement:
We are not talking about radiating more than received. We are talking about the MAINTAINED temperature? — what establishes this? Isn’t the greenhouse effect just such a proposed mechanism of maintaining this temperature? Isn’t N&Z’s effect also a proposed mechanism of maintaining this temperature? Isn’t the greenhouse effect just such a proposed atmosphere-based process? — if not, then what is it? — how is it NOT an atmosphere-based process proposed to heat Earth’s surface?
“THEREFORE: the surface MUST radiate the amount that it receives…”
I think this is a misconception. If there is an atmosphere, a surface can conduct energy as well.
Bingo!
“…the surface can only radiate the amount that it receives, not more and not less.”
But that doesn’t mean that it has to radiate all of the energy it receives. If some is diminished via conduction, then it has less to radiate than it received.
“But that doesn’t mean that it has to radiate all of the energy it receives. If some is diminished via conduction, then it has less to radiate than it received.”
Exactly.
In fact the surface (the real one) cant radiate as much as it receives as it already uses part of the energy for convection, evaporation, etc.
But in one way or the other the same amount of energy will travel upwards. The energy is still transported to higher layers of the atmosphere. Once you get high enough that its cold enough will you get to a layer where CO2 is capable of starting to emit excess energy via radiation. H20 can do this as well & better (across wider range of spectra, temperatures, pressure etc). The higher layers will get a lot of the energy, that they receive from the surface, via collisions instead of only via rsdiation.
Simarly most energy incoming from the sun is absorbed by the atmosphere, long before the remainder (mostly in visible & infrared spectrum) arrives at the surface. Most of the absorption is not immediately emitted back to space, it triggers various processes, which trigger others (gamma ray +O2 to O3, later O3 is disassociated again and we get O2 plus free O etc). Different rays are involved with different gases at various altitudes.
The equilibrium result is that density and temperature is higher at lower altitudes closer to the surface. But that that seems unescapable, regardless of the exact composition of the atmosphere.
The total tally must eventually be a zero sum at equilibrium, when seen at the outer atmosphere.But I do not quite see why a trace gas, which can only radiate a small amount at certain higher altitudes, would neccessarily play some unique role.
If a non-GHG atmosphere of a planet is in contact with a warmed surface, then the atmosphere MUST be warmed by the surface. That atmosphere can cool by conduction with polar regions and by conduction with a nighttime surface, as well as by conduction with molecules higher up that have been cooled by conduction with polar regions and conduction with nighttime surfaces. If we say that the atmosphere can’t be warmed by the surface then we deny physics.
There is no violation of any laws. In this thought-experiment, what physical laws are violated, except for the assumption that the surface must now be radiating more than it receives? Is the near-surface atmosphere not now part of “the surface,” and has that near-surface atmosphere not absorbed a significant amount of energy incoming from the sun through conduction/convection with the surface?
I knew this would be fun! No offense to anyone intended.
Don132
But what holds the sky up above such a planet? The SB blackbody radiation from the surface can’t be the total energy in the planet/atmosphere system. Surely we have to add on the energy required to get all the tons of atmospheric gasses off the ground in the first place? So the system as a whole will require energy in excess of the blackbody equilibrium with incoming solar in order to have an atmosphere at all. This additional energy is locked into the system because it exists as potential energy. Thus the system isn’t fully wound up until the gasses have expanded against the forces of gravity to a point of equilibrium with the solar energy expanding them and the gravity holding them back.
I really hope this isn’t a repeat but if BRIR is true why
Can I calculate the temperature of a surface point without any reference to it.
Can I calculate the temperature distribution in the atmosphere without any reference to it
Is temperature directly related to elevation (atmospheric pressure).
Color me skeptical. The work being done on the atmosphere based on Venus is being done by gravity. Unless you can turn off the gravity, or reduce the mass of the atmosphere, it is like a continuous bicycle tire pump, continuously heating the atmosphere. Ceteris paribus. Other factors may have effects as well but gravitational compression just keeps on working.
LOL, and where does gravity get replenished energy from?
The curvature of space/time in the theory of relativity gives it force in the Newtonian sense. Turn it off and watch the atmosphere decompress and fly away. The pump does not stop as in the other analogies. Just keeps on going.
Force is not energy, nor is it work which is energy per unit time. Gravity can exert a constant force, but it can’t “continuously heat” a system.
LOL that is even funnier … ready so lets sinking your little boat with GR.
Energy has mass (E=MC2) so if you are creating energy to do this work then Venus is going into runaway becoming heavier and heavier (eventually to become a black hole). Long before that Venus will have destabilized the entire solar system and it will be changing it’s orbit and every planets.
Hmmm want to try that again?
+++
Personally I think you might want to restore the Energy Conservation or you are sinking faster than Venus is gaining mass 🙂
Oh and I forgot Jim if you really want to go down this classic physics crazy try working out where a fridge magnet gets it’s endless supply of energy to resist gravity and stay on that door 🙂
“Color me skeptical. The work being done on the atmosphere based on Venus is being done by gravity. ”
“it is like a continuous bicycle tire pump, continuously heating the atmosphere”
So in that case why don’t we utilise that to create perpetual energy for mankind?
Something for nothing merely by being within the Earth’s gravitational field?
Your logical fail comes from not realising that a “continuous bicycle tyre pump” tends to have the effect of causing a change in pressure. Upwards. Err continuously.
Gravity does not do that.
It stopped at 1013mb.
It has the atmosphere under pressure and it is no longer exerting work on it (in the sense of INCREASING the pressure and hence intensifying molecular collisions within it).
It’s over, fini, deceased, and pushing up the daisies.
Have you not been reading this thread?
So your bike tyre stays hot for ever?
Or if you’re a diver, your air tank?
Ever heard of hydroelectric power?
The logical fail in that is that the water needs to be replaced, it can’t flow forever unless that is so.
The sky-dragon N & Z “theory” says it’s perpetual with nothing needed to be replaced.
Gravity producing energy forever.
Force is an energy vector i.e. with a direction. You are using conservation of energy inappropriately. Take the steel tank away or the rubber tire and your compressed gas dissipates. Gravity can produce energy as long as it has something to work upon, water in the dam or hydrogen in a star. No gravity, no electricity or sunshine. Other than being 27% closer to the sun, what causes Venus’ high temperature. Pv=nrt. Certainly not co2 in any major way. At 90+ bars continuously being applied (to replace the steel tank or rubber tire) it is heating the atmosphere.
“Gravity can produce energy as long as it has something to work upon”
Work is force times distance. Gravity can provide the force to compress a gas from a large volume to a small volume, but once the gas has compressed, there’s no more work being done.
“At 90+ bars continuously being applied (to replace the steel tank or rubber tire) it is heating the atmosphere.”
No it’s not.
If logic as elucidated by myself and others on this thread cannot get through….
Again … keeping something pressurised is NOT applying work (and therefore heating).
It is the ACT of pressurisation that is the work.
Once it stops the gas will cool.
When a gas is compressed the molecules are pushed together causing collisions between and raising internal energy.
Stop the compression and further collisions stop (conceptually)
Otherwise you get something for nothing.
Unless, that is, the mass of the Earth slowly diminishes (of course it doesn’t).
Try going around and checking all the worlds pneumatic tyres to see if the are hot eh?
No, the heat of the atmosphere is provided by the sun. Gravity works to maintain the lapse rate, ie, pressure drop with altitude.
Mr. Layman here.
What temperature changes does the Moon, Mars, Mercury experience when they don’t face the Sun?
Pretty extreme.
What keeps the Earth from experiencing the same? Our oceans and our atmosphere. Water heats and cools slower than “air”. “Air” heats and cools faster than water.
There are two big factors that the effect temperature of the Earth.
But those two are just the gas and liquid elements involved the Earth’s supposed fever.
What about the “solid” part of the equation?
(According to Al, the Earth’s core is millions of degrees so everything is vaporized and I wouldn’t be here to make this comment and you wouldn’t be here to read it.)
The same volume of rock takes more time to heat up and cool down than a liquid.
The previous objects I mentioned all have lots of rock so there must be something(s) else going on.
The CAGWers want to claim that the only variable involved in any change in the weather is only Man’s Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions. (I think that Nut from New York has included CO2 from farming.)
Back on point as this Layman sees it, No greenhouse gas effect from our atmosphere, no oceans to retain and release heat, no Sun to supply the heat, no Rare Earth.
Focusing on ONLY Man’s CO2 as the cause of all of the weather patterns is politics, not science.
Increasing pressure generates heat so long as the pressure continues to increase. When the pressure becomes stable, there is no more added heat. If the container or system is perfectly insulated, there is no heat loss and it maintains its temperature. Reducing pressure causes it to cool. Imperfect or non-existent insulation allows heat to radiate away until the compressed gas reaches ambient temperature.
That part I understand. Someone please educate me further on the greenhouse effect itself. As I understand it, solar energy strikes the surface and is absorbed. Energy then radiates from the surface as long wavelength IR. Certain gases absorb certain wavelengths of IR and then re-emit it. So am I right that greenhouse gases don’t increase temperature, they just delay the radiation into space of a certain amount of energy.
You now need to get out of stupid classical physics and you need to learn a tiny bit of Quantum Mechanics.
Just do a search on “optical pumping” or specifically “optical pumping of CO2”.
I should say the energy will be offloaded from the CO2 to Nitrogen and other gases the pump is just the first phase it is what happens with the excited states that is where all the action is.
That is how we produce the population inversion in CO2 laser, collisional energy transfert between N2 and CO2.
First, download the Raytheon Infra Red Wall Chart from http://www.pblprojects.org/EOC/docs/Raytheon_IR_rvs_wallchart.pdf and peruse it.
First, look at the Spectral Radiant Emittance graph in the upper middle. This is the Stephan-Boltzmann curve and describes how an ideal blackbody emits electromagnetic (EM) radiation at a particular surface temperature. Note that two things happen as a blackbody gets hotter: the curve gets higher, and the peak of the curve moves towards shorter wavelengths. As an example, the Sun approximates an ideal blackbody at a temperature of 6000K. Notice particularly the differences between the curve for the Sun, at 6000K, and the “ambient temperature” (in your typical lab) of 300K (27C or 80 F).
In the real world, objects cannot be perfectly black and every physical object has an “emissivity” between 0 (perfect reflector and emits no energy) and 1 (a perfect blackbody radiator). The lower the emissivity, the higher its temperature must be to get the same emitted radiation as a blackbody. A good ultra-black flat paint has an emissivity of about .98 or so. The emissivity of the Earth’s surface is somewhere around .6, on the average. (NASA)
Next, look along the bottom of the chart at the Transmittance curve, which gives the atmospheric transmittance for wavelengths from UV to ultra-long-band IR. Note that there are a number of transmission windows where nearly all EM energy passes through and a number of absorption bands where nearly all energy is absorbed by (and re-emitted by) the atmosphere. (Trying to look through the air with an IR camera in an absorption band is like trying to look through glowing fog).
In particular, there are very heavy absorption bands at 1.5, 1.9, 2.6, 4.3, and 5.5-7.5 microns (um). Compare the two charts and notice very particularly that the atmosphere passes energy very well at the peak of the Sun’s emission spectrum. It also blocks, by absorption, much of the energy at the Earth’s emission peak! These absorption bands are due to the “greenhouse gasses”: water vapor, CO2, and , to a lesser extent, methane and other gasses. (See also https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/).
This is a simplification, but energy from the Sun hits the top of the atmosphere. Some of it is absorbed by and heats the air on the way down, in the absorption bands. Much of it, though, especially in the visible part of the spectrum hits and warms the ground. About half of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is re-emitted back into space, the other half is emitted towards the ground and heats it and the lower part of the atmosphere.
The earth, however, is at a cooler temperature than the Sun and it’s peak emission is right in the middle of those absorption bands. So it re-radiates the energy that it has absorbed from the Sun back out. Most of that escapes back into space (which has an effective temperature of 4K, so is an almost ideal heat sink) through the transmission windows, but much is absorbed by and heats the air – and the “climate”, to be eventually re-radiated by the upper atmosphere.
The stable temperature of the Earth’s surface, and of the air immediately above it, then is the temperature at which the energy received from the Sun is radiated into space, according to the Stephan-Boltzmann curve, allowing for the actual surface emissivity. However, you also have to take into account a tremendous number of other factors, including the absorption and emission characteristics of the atmosphere itself; that water can be vapor, droplet (cloud), ice, or surface liquid and change form quite quickly; and the convective dynamics of the atmosphere, which – as Willis has pointed out – can make life quite interesting.
(I’m setting aside for the moment the energy reflected from the ground, effects of clouds, and the fact that where energy is most absorbed – near the equator, during daytime – isn’t where it’s primarily radiated out again – at the poles, at night, where there’s little water in the atmosphere.)
The key, than, is how much escapes through the transmission windows and how much is absorbed to heat the atmosphere. Adding more “greenhouse” gasses increases the amount of Earth’s radiated energy that is absorbed again before it reaches space. (This is, of course, not the cause of the argument. Without some “greenhouse effect” we’d be like Mars. The debate is over how much overall effect each gas has and whether the bit of CO2 that we add is significant.)
Paul
The GHE is sometimes exaggerated by implying that only CO2 in the atmosphere interacts with radiation, the rest of the atmosphere is inert to radiation almost as if it were dark matter. Water vapour and clouds are also often ignored in such discussions.
Another problem is that these discussions seem to assume that a photon emitted from earth’s surface gets only one or if lucky, 2 or 3 interactions before leaving to space or being reabsorbed at the surface. The real number is much higher of course.
By analogy, a photon emitted near the sun’s core takes something like 100,000 years of bouncing around before it escapes the sun’s surface. It would be interesting to find out the corresponding “escape time” for an IR photon emitted at earth’s surface. Minutes? Hours? Days?
The answer from earth is dead simple it is almost instant .. we know it for certain because we fire normal data laser beams and entangled particles in the emission window for space communication.
The ISS for example has a 1550nm link
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/183876-nasa-installs-space-laser-on-the-iss-uses-it-to-transmit-high-speed-data-back-to-earth
If you look at the Chinese with entagled photons from QUESS they tag/mark and receive individual photons … this is all know with hard experiments and outside the stupidity of climate science.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/que-1
Just do a search on “Evaluation of Optimum Wavelengths for space communication” it will give you all the basic background.
Willis would you agree with Dr Nic Lewis that the cumulative effect of co2 emissions ( sensitivity) would be about about half of the projection of IPCC AR5?
IOW if all human co2 emissions ceased today what would be the impact after 1,000 years? Do you broadly agree with Dr Lewis? I think a lot of people would like to know who agrees or disagrees with AR5 cumulative sensitivity . Thanks.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/11/climate-sensitivity-to-cumulative-carbon-emissions/
Here’s his update to their Fig 2
Very interesting discussion of the behavior of gasses, even on New Year’s Eve. 😉
Happy New Year!
Some folks are noticing the problem that in order for pressure to “maintain” a temperature, and if that pressure involves gravity, then gravity appears to be doing work without consuming any energy.
Let’s not forget relativity. Gravity is a shorthand for curvature of spacetime.
I have a feeling that Einstein anticipated string theory in the sense that reality involves architecture and morphology, not just points and numbers. And lots of dimensions.
I work with blackbodies all the time, in my work with infrared cameras. The Stefan-Boltzmann curve only applies when the emmisivity of the surface is 1, which the Earth’s surface most certainly is not. In addition, it specifies the surface temperature – that is, the surface that is visible to space, not the insulated interior, which – in effect – is what the surface is.
The other classical error that Nikolov and Zeller seem to be making is in mistaking temperature for heat. The law of thermodynamics only gives that the energy leaving the Earth must, over the long term, equal that received from the Sun plus any leaking from the core. It says nothing about the temperatures at the Earth’s (solid/liquid) surface.
Paul Blase December 31, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Sorry, Paul, but that is not true. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is
where W is radiation, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8), T is temperature …
… and epsilon is emissivity …
Since we can put the emissivity into the equation, it applies at ANY emissivity.
w.
I think that the increasing pressure analogies are not applicable. Both the pure black body and a planet with an atmosphere are about systems at equilibrium. You can look at the whole atmosphere as a system that is black body-like, and average it out. Look at the atmosphere’s typical average temperature profile vs. altitude and pressure, and at the point of half the surface pressure, where you have the centre of mass, the temperature is what you would get from a blackbody equation. I’ve only looked at the results myself for Earth and Venus, but it pans out. Surprising considering the huge differences in composition and pressures between the two, that the temperatures behaved the same way.
JimG
That is correct.
At hydrostatic equilibrium no additional compression is required. It is sufficient to have an ongoing cycle of decompression and compression which is supplied by convective overturning.
A layman’s plain English description of Zeller & Nikolov’s “discovery” is at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Zeller-Nikolov-climate-by-Christopher-Calder-Al-Gore_Al-Gore_Biofuels_Climate-Change-181228-572.html
A significant point seems to me is their comparison of Earth and Venus.
Alan, the N&Z results are a meretricious example of overfitting. Read The Mystery of Equation 8 for a discussion of why this is true.
w.
Eventually this ”net” b0ll0cks” will disappear up Dr Roys sphlincter.
Back radiation emission from a sub-zero temperature atmosphere is only potential heat, there is not one empirical measurement to show it thermalises in surface and isn’t just deflected by the earths as per the 2nd law.
You have to proof the greenhouse hypothesis to raise to theory and Dr Roy can only do that with sophistry and mathemagics.
Joe Postma makes complete mugs out of willis Dr Roy. and their steel greenhouse junk maths
‘[In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), ”
I suppose it’s possible you could be more unpleasant, but you’d have to work at it.
In any case, such personal passionate attacks on folks who disagree with you are a clear sign that you are very unsure of your scientific position … when a man starts throwing mud, I know he’s out of real ammunition.
Best of the New Years to you,
w.
In complete agreement with you there, Willis.
Don132
Bit simplistic but simple is better. Heat flows from hot to cold. Avg temperature of the ocean surface which makes up 70% of the surface is 17 deg C. Avg temperature of ground at 200 ft is 1deg C higher than surface, and increases with depth.
Avg air temperature at surface is 15 deg C and decreases with altitude. It is being warmed by the earth (ex atmosphere) and not vice versa.
It appears to me that heat is being transferred from the earth (ex atmosphere) to the atmosphere and space, in other words, global cooling. The GHG in atmosphere are our insulation, and reduces the rate at which we are cooling, but does not warm us.
Temperature changes in the atmosphere come from changes in ocean circulation which release more (eg el nino) or less heat to atmosphere (eg la nina) . Variations in earths (ex atmosphere) cooling rate , and variations in the suns and earths magnetic field strength -which reduce or increase GCR’s that affect cloud formation , affect the temperature of the atmosphere.
If no atmosphere or GHG at all we are at -18 deg C, and the cooling process becomes much much quicker.
The planets destiny before being consumed by an expanding and dying sun is as a giant iceball. GHG such as CO2 buy us more time.
Co2 has not got the heat capacity to absorb 15 micron photons in the first kilometre it needs to be at -80c to absorb 15 micron photons,..
See Alan Tomaltys regular posting very proffesional, and ive not seen one person challenge his heat capacity calculations.
Back radiation has nothing zilch to do with absortion spectra, and everything to do with emission spectre and emission temperature.
Hey..nice. minus 80C is where CO2 imparts heat. Thus thermalisation will never reach surface as gases emit as a sphere, hence ever more diluted from 10km up. No effect on surface temp. Convection eaten it up. No hotspot. Net zero game . Better off w walking towards equator to get warmer or downhill.
Absolute garbage! A CO2 molecule in its ground vibrational state which about 98% of the molecules at 25ºC are will readily absorb a photon of ~15 microns.
Agree.
Temperature (energy level) of a CO2 molecule is not relevant to whether it will absorb an IR photon. Temperature is very relevant to whether it will emit IR photons and at what rate.
No. More heat flows from hot than from cold.
See the difference?
‘to’ is wrong.
Doesn’t make sense. Thermal transfer is from high potential to low potential (like electrical current). What evidence exists that a colder object heats a warmer object? Non-sensical. More likely IMO: radiation from a hotter object prevents radiation from a colder object along that vector.
Interesting concept. How would a (very slightly) cooler object know that it should not radiate in the direction of a (very slightly) warmer object (through that mirror 10m = 33ns away) when there is the possibility that the warmer object releases the energy that makes it ‘warmer’ in that say, 200ns the transfer would take and it becomes in fact cooler than the source?
Even more terrifying: When the warmer object is able to ‘see’ only a cooler one and emits some energy in the direction of it and another object did the same and 10ns before the energy packet of one of them hits the receiving object it becomes warmer than the source.
There are only two possible cases an energy packet can experience when hitting an object. Exactly at the time of the hit
– the object is cooler than the sender was
— then the packet is caught and the object becomes warmer or
— the packet is reflected (we know that photons only are caught with a probability)
– the object is warmer than the sender was
— then the packet is reflected (more probably?) or
— the packet is caught anyway
Both of the cases yield the same result for an observer. The object that was hit ‘looks’ warmer either because it reflected the ‘unwanted’ energy and it seems to come from the object or the object a little bit later radiates the caught energy and it does it faster than in its former state.
Icicil, because EMF is a vector force by nature is Physics. Check it out and follow a new trail…. Brett
Heres more simple.
The atmosphere is a blanket, on the lit a blanket hanging from a tree shading you.
And on the dark side keeping us warm.
dammit.
The atmosphere is a blanket, on the lit side of earth a blanket hanging from a tree shading us.
And on the dark side keeping us warm.
Such experts, the adiative transfer believers, who do not know that EMF is always a VECTOR force, would not admit what that means. I really hope not, for their sakes. Happy New Year to all. Brett
I’d like to try and cut through the issue of a unit of matter radiating at a rate commensurate with its temperature as per the S-B equation.
A given temperature is represented by the vibrational activity of the unit of matter concerned.
If one measures that level of vibrational activity from a point in contact with the unit of matter then of course S-B will apply and the appropriate wavelength of IR will observed.
If one measures it at a point distant from the initial unit of matter with no matter between the initial unit and the sensor then again the appropriate wavelength will be observed.
However, if one then interposes matter at a different temperature between the initial unit of matter and the sensor them S-B will not apply if conduction and convection have occurred between the initial unit of matter and the sensor.
That is what happens between a radiating surface and space beyond the atmosphere.
The continuously convecting mass of the atmosphere prevents the full amount of surface radiation from reaching space.
An IR sensor will still give the correct measure of temperature for the initial unit of matter because it is designed to ignore the interference from interposing matter at a different temperature.
Therefore, there is no incompatibility between a surface temperature of say 288k beneath a convecting atmosphere and an S-B temperature observed from space of say 255K. An IR sensor placed in space might still be able to measure the surface at 288k but only if it is designed to ignore the interference of 33k from the interposing atmosphere.
The AGW proponents say that the ‘missing’ 33k when viewing Earth from space is due to GHGs radiating that 33k back downwards but if that were the case then Earth should be radiating to space at 288k but it is not.
Earth’s temperature could not be as stable as observed if it were either radiating to space at 288k (because that is more going out than it receives) or if the atmosphere were radiating downwards at 33k in addition to ongoing insolation at 255k ( because that is more being received than it sends out).
The only logical solution is a discrete non radiative energy transfer loop between surface and atmosphere which requires additional surface energy to sustain it.
“The AGW proponents say that the ‘missing’ 33k when viewing Earth from space is due to GHGs radiating that 33k back downwards”
No. That is not remotely what AGW proponents say.
Steven,
I’m trying to understand your theory about pressure. I’m not scientifically minded so I’m struggling. But is it basically that the fact that gas at altitude has a greater ratio of potential:kinetic energy, and that potential energy does not exist as heat but persists nonetheless as energy.
Thus while the energy radiated in and out of the total system remains the same the addition of potential energy acts as a store of energy that is not accounted for in the in/out measurements. Somewhat like a battery on charge, that is at the same time passing current to an energy sink. First the battery/atmosphere-earth system has to be charged up to its full capacity by the power source/sun, thereafter it will absorb and emit energy to the energy sink/space without gaining extra energy but the measurements of energy in/out will not register the battery’s overall stored energy since it is potential, and not kinetic energy. The capacity to store a charge of the baterry/earth-atmosphere system is the difference between a simple atmosphereless blackbody model and one with gasses held in place by gravity with the sun streaming energy into the system.
Martin,
Yes, that is similar to comments I have made elsewhere at other times when I referred to a reservoir of potential energy which is drawn initially from solar input by conduction when the atmosphere first forms. Thereafter it operates much as your helpful battery analogy.
Stephen,
Congratulations. That is the clearest explanation I have ever seen of the role that the thermally semi-opaque, but turbulently convecting atmosphere has in separating the thermal emission temperature of the ground surface from that of the top of the atmosphere.
So now it becomes clear why the S-B relationship, which can reasonably be applied to the isothermal stratosphere (or of course the Moon’s solid surface in a vacuum), however cannot be applied to explain the thermal structure of the troposphere. This is why a separate equation of state, based on the Ideal Gas Law, is required to explain the thermal properties of the weather layer, in particular the lapse rate and the role that gravity has in establishing this.
OK, now my head hurts…BUT..I think Willis wins…HAPPY NEW YEAR to all of you and your great inputs..
Come on Bret armchair it for me will you please.
ps happy new year.
Electromotive force
Electromotive force, abbreviated emf, is the electrical intensity or “pressure” developed by a source of electrical energy such as a battery or generator. A device that converts other forms of energy into electrical energy provides an emf at its output.
Or such as the earths surface right ?.
Here is another conceptual way to view why atmospheric pressure is not the cause of higher surface temperature compared to a black body.
Pressuring a gas will cause its temperature to rise. That occurs in air within an air compressor. But that increased heat is a one-time effect produced by the energy required to compress the air. When compression stops, the added heating stops. The warmer air inside the compressor begins to lose its extra heat by conduction. IF that compressed air is quickly de-compressed, it cools. But only until it equilibrates with ambient temperature.
IF one could suddenly increase the pressure on Earth’s atmosphere (compressing it further), it would warm. However, IR radiation, which would increase due to warmer air, would dissipate the added heat. That occurs in formation of new stars when they collapse from gravitation. They heat from increasing pressure until nuclear reactions begin and produce an outward counter pressure.
In order for Earth’s atmosphere to posses heat above black body temperature because of atmospheric pressure would require that the atmosphere experience a continual increase in compression in the form of increasing atmospheric pressure. That does not occur. On average, Earth’s atmospheric pressure is constant. Any heating from initial atmospheric compression when the Earth formed has long been radiated away.
donb
As fast as the surface tries to radiate the atmosphere’s potential energy content to space it is replaced by new energy conducted from the surface so it never gets lost to space otherwise the atmosphere would fall to the ground.
At hydrostatic equilibrium no further compression is required. It is sufficient to have an ongoing cycle of decompression and compression which is present in convective overturning.
I believe that the theory proposed by Nikolov and Zeller is wrong. Their claims are not supported by the physics.
Put simply:
A gaseous atmosphere in equilibrium in a spherical gravitational field does not draw its energy from the gravitational field.
A gaseous atmosphere is just an amalgam of atoms, ions, and molecules, each of which contains
3/2 k T of energy – where k is Boltzman’s constant and T is local average temperature.
If an atmosphere contained zero energy all the atoms would be frozen out on the surface of the planet. The atmosphere’s average temperature would be 0 K = -273 C.
If you add energy to the individual atoms and molecules in the atmosphere, some of that energy will manifest itself in the form of kinetic energy (KE) and some as gravitational potential energy (GPE). Indeed, the local temperature of the atmosphere at a given point above the ground will simply be determined by the average speed (or average KE) of the atoms and molecules at that location. Similarly, the GPE of the atoms and molecules will be determined by the height of the particles above the ground. [N.B. some fraction of the energy will be stored in the rotational and vibrational motion of the molecules of the atmosphere, as well.]
The total amount of energy in the atmosphere at any one time is distributed between the atoms and molecules by:
1) collisions between particles
2) the absorption and emission of electromagnetic (EM) radiation by the particles
If no energy is added to the atmosphere either from the planet below, or from space, then whatever energy is present in the atmosphere will be slowly lost to space by radiation, until the atmosphere returns to the zero energy state.
HENCE:
If the atoms and molecules of an atmosphere receive a constant flow of outside net energy from:
a) the planet, in the form of geothermal energy – a small contribution at best.
b) space, in the form of absorbed EM radiation (i.e less the albedo)
c) re-emission of (mostly infrared) radiation from the ground
d) mechanical sensible heating by convection (& conduction)
e) latent heat of condensation of water vapor etc.
they will redistribute this energy amongst all of the particles that make up the atmosphere in such a way that they establish a temperature and pressure profile (with height) that produces an energy loss from the atmosphere that balances the energy gains.
In other words, the height (i.e. GPE) and temperature (i.e. KE) of any given particle in the atmosphere [and hence the equilibrium temperature and density profiles with height] will simply be a result of the way in which the atmosphere responds to ensure that the total energy loss perfectly balances the total energy gain.
Ian,
A gaseous atmosphere in equilibrium in a spherical gravitational field draws its energy from insolation via conduction from the surface during the initial formation. Thereafter that stored (potential energy – not heat) energy is recycled constantly in a net zero energy exchange between surface and atmosphere within convective overturning.
Gravity provides no energy. Gravity only provides the decline in density with height which permits convective overturning.
As fast as the surface tries to radiate that energy store to space it is replaced by new energy conducted from the surface so it never gets lost to space otherwise the atmosphere would fall to the ground.
Roy and Willis.
OK, now let’s substitute a totally non-GHG atmosphere (maybe pure nitrogen?) to 1 bar surface pressure.
Where is the surface from which the SB calculation is to be performed?
Is there no thermal conduction or convection and zero lapse rate?
Regards, just asking.
On a water planet there would always be sublimation and vapour wouldn’t there, like you i’m asking.
This gasless atmosphere blackbody T is just more rancid sophistry.
Why is the Grand Canyon substantially warmer at the bottom than at ground level, if it isn’t compression, or weight of atmosphere.
Is it just as much warmer at night than during the day?
I’m gonna offer up a simplified non-proof.
1) If I create a static system (consistent/uniform external energy source, no night/day), and add some surrounding mass that doesn’t in any way react with the incoming or outgoing energy sources (so it’s completely static dealio over time).
2) ((Energy-in)-(Energy-retained)=(Energy-out))
3) By definition; (Energy-retained) = 0
4) Therefore it is obvious that there cannot be temperature change of the original mass surface.
5) THEREFORE the premise that, atmospheric mass/distribution is a significant input parameter into system temperature variation (for a system that has variable/non-uniform external source), is wrong.
So Don, increase energy in via sun or tilt,.
And all 3 increase simultaneously in proportion.
2) ((Energy-in)-(Energy-retained)=(Energy-out))
And the opposite when less energy in.
Back radiative thermalisation would be free energy and would have to show up in energy out eventually ?.
So that is a ‘its the sun silly’ and only the sun.
I formerly worked with high pressure systems which generated great quantities of heat, and, so, for N-Z to claim fourteen pounds of air pressure per square inch creates the heat profile of the earth, is to admit they are clueless about the effects thereof.
NZ are not claiming that. “Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! Instead, it enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision.”
—Nikolov and Zeller
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309651389_Unified_Theory_of_Climate_-_Expanding_the_Concept_of_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Using_Thermodynamic_Principles_Implications_for_Predicting_Future_Climate_Change
Get on board the density train and you’ll be heading in the right direction.
Don132
This brings up something I’ve wondered about for awhile. The answer is probably simple enough but I just haven’t seen it.
The sun heats the surface and, directly or indirectly, the surface air. In summer it gets very hot, from a human perspective. I understand hot air cooling as it rises It expands because the space available increases. The temperature thus drops even though the air does not loose heat energy, the energy just becomes less concentrated. The air get very cold at a high enough altitude, but still retains most of its original energy. However, high altitude per se doesn’t prevent high temperatures. Air can get very hot, even plasma hot, when lightning passes through it. It is just a matter of energy concentration per volume of air, no?
In the summer temperatures here are often over 100°F and sometimes reach 110 and higher. In the winter, like now, the very same sun, only coming from a low southern angle, manages a barely adequate 60°F on good days. My understanding is that much of the solar energy is being absorbed or reflected away by the greater amount of air it has to travel through to reach the surface in winter, thus there is less heating because there is less energy delivered to the surface.
Over many years I’ve spent many days hiking in the mountains. I generally prefer 6000 feet +. In addition to enjoying walking through unpeopled spaces, seeing continuously changing aspects of terrain and local life, I like to get up there in the summer to get away from the high valley temperatures. Here is where my understanding fails.
The sunshine passes through less atmosphere at high altitudes. The shorter, more energetic wavelength are definitely more intense as shown by the greater tendency to burn the skin. However, even in protected spots (but open to the sun), on very still days, the temperature is much lower than at lower altitudes.
+++ There seems to be no intrinsic bar to the atmosphere heating, the energy input is actually higher than on the valley floor, no doubt the local air also cools adiabatically as it raised to still higher altitudes, but why does that greater solar energy input produce so much less immediate local heating? +++
There is another question about adiabatic heating and cooling. Air cools as it rises. Some energy can be lost at higher altitudes, especially as water vapor condenses. However, adiabatic heating is very common. All over the world the hot, usually dry, winds falling from higher altitudes have picturesque local names and lore about their effects on plants, animals, and people. Due to the heat energy they carry, surface temperatures raise considerably.
This is a heat energy storage/recycling mechanism. Incoming solar heats the air, it rises, cooling without losing all that energy. Sometimes it comes back down later, compressing and regaining much if its original temperature. No energy is added by this process, but stored energy is redistributed, making the surface warmer.
While the mechanism is quite different than radiation absorption and re-emission, it seems to me to have some similar results. No additional energy is created in either case but surface warming occurs from each. How long, on average, is IR prevented from radiating away into space by greenhouse absorption and remission? I’ve seen calculations, based on various assumptions, that come out to about 2 milliseconds per average for an IR photon to ones that add up to a fair number of hours. However, the subject is rarely approached.
+++ Is anything specific actually known? Does the greenhouse effect retain energy longer than adiabatic cycling? For a given time period, does the greenhouse effect retain more energy than adiabatic cycling? By what ratio? +++
Andy
Adiabatic cycling of atmospheric mass causes the greenhouse effect.
To distinguish it from the incorrect radiative version I call it the mass induced greenhouse effect.
The non-greenhouse theory of Nikolov (and now Zeller-Nikolov) is the theory that there really isn’t a so-called “greenhouse effect”, and that the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.
1) It’s just wrong.
–
The just wrong bit wrong is the claim that there is no GHG effect.
Otherwise, despite protestations there is the scientific fact that temperature and pressure are interlinked by many scientific formulae and practically for most substances in their solid liquid and gaseous states.
The guys may be zealots, but they are scientists with lots of knowledge and maths at their disposal.
Just like the AGW guys, they are not nongs.
So what did they get wrong?
Just the bit about GHG having no effect.
The hot Venusian surface is not a case of runaway GHG, Unlike Earth’s atmosphere which is heated from the surface below, the Venusian atmosphere is heated from the clouds above which are thermally disconnected from the surface unlike the clouds of Earth which are tightly coupled to the oceans comprising 3/4 of the surface.
Discounting the idea that Venus is hot owing to the PVT profile of the atmosphere between the clouds in direct equilibrium with the Sun and the planets solid surface is what leads people to conclude that the only other possibility is a runaway GHG effect, which is otherwise impossible, as this requires the infinite, implicit source of Joules to power the gain, which the climate system lacks. This is not the Sun, as the Sun is the forcing input and can’t be the implicit power supply as well. If anyone thinks otherwise, then they definitely don’t understand feedback theory upon which climate ‘feedback’ depends.
Venus and Earth operate in completely different ways. The effects of GHG’s and clouds set the temperature the Earth’s surface will achieve from the available solar input. Nikolov-Zeller is a far better explanation for the temperature of the solid surface of Venus than applying how Earth works to Venus. The crucial piece missing is identifying what is directly heated by the Sun and then how the temperatures of everything else must follow.
Yes insolation seems to be left out in these discussions.
The important question is: “What is heating what?”
On Earth, the Sun heats the surface which heats the atmosphere. On Venus, the Sun heats the clouds which heat the atmosphere which heats the surface.
Earth clouds, unlike Venusian clouds, are tightly thermodynamically coupled to the surface via the water cycle, thus absorption of solar energy by Earth clouds is a proxy for absorption of solar energy by the surface.
All of the concern about the dynamics of the atmosphere are moot, relative to the ECS. All that the dynamics of the atmosphere does is redistribute existing energy. The atmosphere does not create energy of of thin air, which is what the IPCC requires it to do in order to support its absurdly high ECS.
On Earth, the Sun heats the surface which heats the atmosphere. On Venus, the Sun heats the clouds which heat the atmosphere which heats the surface.
Actualy most of the spectrum from the sun never reaches the surface of Earth, but is absorbed by the atmosphere. That already heats the atmosphere. So it is wrong to say that only the surface heats the atmosphere.
Quote doesnt seem to work, first sentence was a quote.
“Actualy most of the spectrum from the sun never reaches the surface of Earth”
Not really. This misconception comes from Trenberth’s defective representation of the planets average energy balance. Only the water in clouds absorbs any significant amount of solar energy and since Earth clouds are tightly coupled to the oceans on short time scales by the hydro cycle, absorption by Earth clouds is a proxy for absorption by Earth’s surface when considering averages over a few weeks or longer. In contrast, the Venusian clouds are a completely independent thermodynamic system from the solid surface below.
the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.
Facts.
The sun, if it condensed from debris, is incredibly hot in part due to the gravitational pressure compressing its elements.
The earth also has a molten core, due to pressure [and radiation] which of course works better at higher temperatures and gets hotter the deeper one goes
The atmosphere closer to the earth surface contains far more energy than the diluted layers further out.
The sea is not frozen solid at depth where there is very little energy input.
Willis himself was able to do a simple calculation that approximated the temperatures.
–
The theory is not totally wrong.
The point is that the composition of the atmosphere is vitally important to their calculations.
An earth without CO2 in the atmosphere would still be warm due to the GHG effect of H2O.
just a few degrees cooler.
An earth with only Nitrogen and Oxygen to the same pressure as currently would be colder but still much warmer than the moon. The heat in the atmosphere would come from conduction from the earth surface followed by massive convection as the surface temperature in the sunlight would be massive.
More energy would hit the earth without the clouds to reflect it.
This temperature can be determined by albedo and atmospheric pressure.
Why not???
–
Now if the claim is that all 3 examples at 1 atmosphere of pressure but different gases, must have the same temperature the theory is wrong.
Recognizing that the actual atmospheric makeup is more important than just the pressure itself and can modify it substantially is all they have to do to make their variation of physics totally mainstream.
There is nothing new in it. Just a recognition of basic physics principles.
“the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.”
There is no warming in excess of the SB temperature when Earth considered a gray body whose temperature is that of the surface (288K) and whose emissions are that of the planet (equivalent emissivity = 0.62). The sensitivity of this gray body is a little less than the ideal SB sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2 at 255K, where the sensitivity of a black (e = 1) or gray (e != 1) body is given exactly by, 1/(4*e*o*T^3), where for Earth, T = 288K and e = 0.62.
The logical flaw in your argument arises from the logical flaw in the IPCC’s pseudo-science, which is that the sensitivity is not amplified by feedback, but that the feedback power in W/m^2 is amplified by a sensitivity expressed as a dimensionless power gain of g = 1.62 = 1/e = 1/0.62. They tend to count the effect twice, first as 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing from doubling CO2 which is then applied incorrectly to a system with a sensitivity claimed to be increased by incremental CO2.
We have the solar system data and the Gas Laws. It should suffice, and it shall. Happy New Year from New Zealand. Brett
In none of the above comments has anyone commented directly on the proposition put forward in my linked article so here it is for easy access and comments are invited:
“i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.
Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.
On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.
After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.
At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.
During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.
Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.
ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.
On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.
On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.
One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.
That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.
That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.
The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.
ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K
Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.”
In that scenario you would get turbulence.
Not just rising bright side, falling dark side.
Turbulence is the territory of chaos, where it starts getting interesting for me!
Spontaneous nonlinear pattern formation to export entropy, etc… 😁
“At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below ”
Colder but less dense Nitrogen, If it is at the top it may well be very cold but it cannot be very dense until it descends to the surface.
–
“Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction.”
Stop
If you are trying to replicate an earth situation with a nitrogen atmosphere at earth pressure you cannot get 33K absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface, you need water vapour and CO2 to do this.
–
” The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space”
No, no, no.
Energy in equals energy out. 255K is what is seen from space,[trust me].
The actual earth surface temperature would be somewhat higher given an atmosphere is present.
This should be true for all non GHG atmospheres without reflective clouds Just like the GHG effect but a lot weaker it would reflect the energy given back to the ground by the warm surface air. The atmosphere raises the effective emission level which means that air or land below that level can be warmer than the land would be if it did not have an atmosphere [maybe].
That equation should read Energy in = Energy heating up the radiative stuff + energy out
–
“ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K”.
The air on the heated side can be up to 127 degrees Celsius hotter [like the moon surface] and goes out as well as up. The air moving from the dark side is still quite cold, It might get down to – 140 C [moon -153C]. Most of the air coming in will be extremely cold, not at all 33K warmer possibly only 10 K, maybe less as it is mainly heated by the sun as it approaches the upgoing column.
–
You state
“The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space.””
then
” the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.”
–
“Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side”
There is no 33K flowing from the dark side. It is cool because most of it has radiated to space.
one comment must be wrong.
–
The planets temp is 255K [from space]. The surface temp is higher due to the atmosphere, both NK and Spencer will grant you that.
The cold side is really cold, atmosphere or not, just like the moon. All the energy being added comes on the light side from the sun.
angech
i The air at the top of the column being less buoyant will always be pushed aside by more buoyant air coming up from below. Basic meteorology.
ii One does not need water vapour or CO2 for conduction from surface to air to take place. I only use 33k for illustrative purposes since I am aware that there are disputes about the size of the greenhouse effect (whether induced by radiation or by atmospheric mass)
iii The Earth only ‘appeared’ to drop below 255k during the formation of the atmosphere. The surface remained at 255k as per S-B but during the formation process some of the outgoing radiation was diverted to conduction. You cannot have the same unit of surface energy being in two places at once due to conservation of energy principles.
iv The 33k figure is for illustrative purposes only as explained above. The point is simply that due to descending air warming by compression the air flowing back to the base of rising columns is warmer than it would have been under the terms of the S-B equation and that is the mass induced greenhouse effect.
v You have wrongly conflated two separate comments of mine about the temperature as viewed from space so no need for me to address that.
Have a happy New Year Stephen
I’m amazed the reviewers failed to recognise “Volokin and Rellez” as the inverse of Nikolov and Zeller.
There people must be humourless, imaginationless dullards, in addition to being biased and corrupt – the thing that forced Z&N to change their names.
I wonder if anyone would raise an eyebrow, be it ever so slightly, if a paper were submitted by an author called
“Silliw H Cabnesse”?
I like the name Silliw in the circumstances 🙂
My rule of thumb is that when someone starts making fun of my looks, my clothing, my age, my hair, or my name … it means I’ve won the debate.
w.
Sense of humour failure on your part rather than an indication of winning. 🙂
Anyway. it is not about winning, it is about truth seeking and I note that you have not directly addressed my description of the mechanical processes involved in the mass induced greenhouse effect.
S_M: Mars is irrelevant anyway because it is below 0.1bar. Still the CO2 has no effect. Tough! Brett
“Silliw H. Cabnehcse”
Catchy, but it would “fool the pal-review [I mean, ‘peer review’] process”.
Alan Tomalty December 31, 2018 at 11:41 pm
I would consider that earth’s atmosphere acts like a continuous pump. The atmosphere expands and contracts. Whether gravity does this or not, I wouldn’t conjecture because no one understands or understood gravity (not even Einstein, but that is a topic for another day). However DWIR does exist as even Ned Nikolov is forced to admit or why would cloudy nights be warmer than non cloudy nights. WILLIS Could you please put your thinking cap on to try to destroy Thayer Watkins conclusions about cloudy nights ? I took Thayer’s conclusions and figured out the maximum effect of CO2 from that.
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
The following is my calculations given that Thayer is correct in his.
********************************************************************************
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.
So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).
So all we have to do is calculate Twet.
Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.
Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C? This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 13.5 % and the effect of CO2 = 1.5%.
Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
————————-
Thanks Alan, you have restored my confidence in scientists’ ability to not only investigate, but explain their reasoning.
So many wrongs it isn’t worth dealing with this but as an indication how bad your logic is lets just highlight this classic funny
You do get the IR emission is there constantly and on both the light and dark side of the earth, both sides have a temperature … rethink it all 🙂
“Whether gravity does this or not, I wouldn’t conjecture because no one understands or understood gravity (not even Einstein, but that is a topic for another day). ”
What an incredible statement, rather like Macron’s Jupitererian remarks! Royal aspirations, what?
Reminds me of the Master of the Mint Isaac Newton’s “hypothesis non fingo” sleight of hand all the while pushing absolute space.
Arbitrary pair-wise reduction in flatland, while claiming no conjecture is purely and simply magic, Newton’s actual specialty (Keynes’ biography). This alchemy turns up in economics and look at the chaos that ensues, rather like the climate model chaos, except it destroys an economy.
The satellites clearly show that both the solar radiation absorption and the emissivity of the oceans is the largest.
Water vapor plays a decisive role in changes in temperature on land.
Ren
Do you have an IR image of the earth 🌍 ?
I use this data.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html
Bingo, we have a winner: Water vapor. We don’t have a closed atmosphere like a closed greenhouse causing an greenhouse effect. We have a greenhouse with a vent window opened atmosphere. Yuma Az and Shreveport, La are about the same size city and situated along the same latitude. Yuma’s daytime highs are about 15 degrees (f) higher than Shreveport but their night time lows are about the same. Why? Both have the same amount of CO2. I believe Shreveport has a more efficient “swamp cooler” (greenhouse vent window) effect.
It works without water vapour – see above.
Water vapour helps facilitate energy transfers via its phase changes and due to water vapour being lighter than air.
Thus where water vapour is present the vigour of convective overturning declines and the surface temperature remains unchanged.
In fact that is the effect of ALL radiative material in an atmosphere. The more downward radiation there is the less vigorous convective overturning will be.
The most vigorous convection occurs in a non radiative atmosphere so that upward convected energy is returned back to the surface to be radiated out to space fast enough to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.
Strange how Saturn generates twice as much heat through “internal processes” than it recieves through solar irradiation, and that we believe its core is hotter than the surface of the sun.
Also strange that we teach kids that if Jupiter were 80 times more massive (more static pressure) it would ignite into a star.
Convection and friction of highly compressed gases only generate heat on gaseous planets, not on Venus, apparently.
Ktm
‘…friction of highly compressed gases…’
Accordingly there are layers of atmosphere on Venus travelling at hugely differing speeds. Along with the depth and corresponding depth of Venus’ atmosphere, heat from friction cannot be ruled out. Considering Venus is one of the most reflective bodies in the solar system then the surface of Venus is shielded from some of the sun’s heat radiation?
The Venusian surface is nearly completely shielded from solar energy and at a constant temperature. This is much like the 75% of the Earth’s solid surface beneath the oceans, which is also completely shielded from solar energy, is also at a constant temperature independent of day/night or seasons and dictated by the pressure/density/temperature profile of water.
If gravity was driving atmospheric heat, wouldn’t Jupiter be hotter than Venus?
The interior of Jupiter is much hotter than the surface of Venus.
No one knows exactly how hot, but it might be about 24,000°C near Jupiter’s core.
Ktm January 1, 2019 at 4:38 am
Ktm, there are very, very different physical processes at play on Saturn, Venus, and Jupiter.
SOURCE
Best regards,
w.
At its core, Neptune is estimated to be 7000 °C:
https://www.universetoday.com/21669/temperature-of-neptune/
Something apparently keeps Uranus’ internal heat from reaching its atmospheric surface, making it colder than its near twin Neptune, despite being much closer to the Sun.
Speculation includes some effect from whatever caused Uranus to rotate on its “side”.
Slightly off topic. Years ago , I read a speculation that Earth was x% warmer during the Mesozoic era because the atmosphere was about 10% thicker. I remembered the equation, PV =nRT,
Plugged in P=1.1, and was immediately stuck. What was to keep V from being reduced by 1/1.1, leaving T constant? Or from increasing to 2/1.1 DOUBLING T? That equation alone, without a greenhouse effect factor, told me nothing.
The Mesozoic was warmer mostly thanks to submarine volcanism associated with the formation of the Atlantic Ocean.
The SB temperature for the earth suggests it should be -33C.
The lapse rate as detailed in the ‘US Standard Atmosphere’ has a surface temp of ~ +15C, and ~ -50C at the top of the troposphere.
A range in temperature of ~ 65C.
Since convection moves warm/cold parcels of are and effectively makes the surface warmer and the top of the troposphere cooler, lets say it splits it 50 50.
The SB temp -33C and the temperature range above 65C divided by 2 for the rise and sink of air come out approximately equal.
SB correct, standard atmosphere correct, lapse rate correct, no contraction.
The final unknown is what fundamentally causes the lapse rate?
SR.
SR
The lapse rate marks the changing balance between radiation and conduction as one descends through the mass of an atmosphere.
The deeper you go the more conduction there is relative to radiation and the hotter it gets.
GHGs distort the lapse rate slope one way in ascending air but an equal and opposite way in descending air so that the resulting convective adjustments neutralise any thermal imbalances from radiative material:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
Actually, according to experiments done by the Connollys, GHGs do not distort the lapse rate, and the infrared cooling models used in GCMs are therefore incorrect. https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
Don132
Alan
N & Z have accurately reported their observations.
Those observations are by no means unique.
I have supplemented those observations by describing in simple terms the relevant mechanism.
That description does appear to be unique and no contributor here or elsewhere has yet been able to set out a valid objection to my description.
Anthony, Willis and Roy will no doubt continue to disagree but I commend Anthony for allowing a continuing discussion.
Don
The Connollys need to invent the pervection concept because they do not realise that the lapse rate distortion arising within rising columns of air is fully offset by the lapse rate distortion arising within descending columns of air.
My simpler description negates the need for the pervection concept.
Greenhouse gases CAUSE a [lapse] rate. Without them, there would be no net lapse rate. The daytime positive lapse rate would be offset by a nighttime negative lapse rate, leaving AVERAGE lapse rate of zero.
Alan
There would still be a lapse rate in a non radiative atmosphere due to the decline in density withy height
Stephen Wilde January 2, 2019 at 1:37 am
Not true, Stephen. See here for a proof.
w.
Hello Willis.
That alleged ‘proof” deals only with an isolated column which limits free convective overturning and thus is not applicable to an atmosphere around a sphere illuminated on one side.
You can see how daft the idea is by considering the total energy content of a gas molecule at the boundary of space. It would be at the same temperature as the surface AND have a full load of potential energy attributable to its height off the surface. Surface molecules would only have kinetic energy and no potential energy. Such an unbalanced total energy profile would prevent hydrostatic equilibrium because at all points in the vertical column the upward pressure gradient force would be in excess of the downward force of gravity and the atmosphere could not be retained.
I have often been surprised by that author’s blind spots given his eminence.
Without greenhouse gases, there would reach a point where there was NO convective overturning, since temperatures would ultimately reach the same temperature all the way up.
Alan
Convection cannot cease or be prevented because uneven surface heating will always create density differentials in the horizontal plane.
A fall in temperature with height cannot cease or be prevented because the density gradient created by gravity causes conversion of kinetic energy (heat) to potential energy (not heat) during the expansion of rising gases with height.
Stephen Wilde January 2, 2019 at 3:13 am Edit
So you agree that the proof is correct for the situation it describes. Also, the air in the isolated column is free to overturn convectively …
Now you seem to be saying that the proof is NOT correct. Which one is it?
Since you haven’t identified any “blind spots”, I fear that’s just handwaving.
w.
Willis
The scenario described works on its own terms but is not a suitable substitute for the real atmosphere due to the expansion constraints provided by the sides of the isolated column.
That is why it is flawed and my comments are consistent.
Lack of water vapor in the west of the US. Temperature in degrees C.
Thank you to Willis, Roy and Anthony.
I hope for more of this, and less politics and ideology. Things do seem to be heading in the right direction on that front.
But if we take the model proposed by Ellis then how do we go from non- atmospheric to atmospheric conditions? First the blackbody would have to warm up until its temperature reached equilibrium with the incoming solar energy. But before it does so it must turn some of its mass into gasses which form an initial low atmosphere. (Assuming that these gases are all non-greenhouse gases for arguments’ sake.). Energy is required to raise and expand the gases that are being held back by gravitational forces. This energy is in excess of the energy required to raise the temperature of the non-atmospheric blackbody to equilibrium. Eventually as the atmospheric expansion reaches its maximum the entire planetary/atmospheric system reaches energy equilibrium with the incoming solar energy at a value of the blackbody + energy required to inflate the atmosphere against gravitational opposition. This value is the difference between blackbody and energy required to maintain atmospheric pressure. This would be the fully inflated bicycle tyre analogy. The system is emitting energy as fast as it is gaining it as a whole (including atmosphere).
However the solar energy does not hit the system uniformly. We have a rotating body. So we get temperature differentials and thus rising and cooling/falling and warming gasses. Also we have a tyre that has a leak that is equal to the incoming energy + the tyres non-leakiness.
Basically if you agree that without gravity the atmosphere would evaporate then you have to agree that if the sun went out the atmosphere would collapse. The energy from the shining of the sun and the gravitational forces act in opposition to one another. An atmosphere assumes both. (And that some equilibrium has been reached between these opposing forces.). If you accept that this is what it is for a planet to have an atmosphere then you have to think that this equilibrium is greater than the planet’s blackbody equilibrium alone. This follows because an atmosphere includes gravitational forces + solar energy by definition. The equilibrium of the planetary/atmospheric system includes the gravitational energy necessary to hold the system at equilibrium. Thus the energy of the system is raised above the value of a simple non atmospheric planet.
Martin,
Correct.
I do hope that Anthony, Willis and Roy take the point after due consideration 🙂
Those who seem to want to argue that pressure means little may not realize that if they lie down right where there are, right now, then the pressure on top of them would be equal to about 20 grand pianos and would kill them, just as it can crush a railroad tanker (Google it.) Luckily for us and deep-sea fish, the pressure is equalized. Look out the window: you’ll looking at about 20 grand pianos per square meter of pressure. It’s invisible.
Willis’ argument is fatally flawed because it excludes the energy absorbed by the atmosphere through conduction/convection, which effectively increases total energy in. If the surface radiates more than the surface takes in, it’s because it’s also radiating what the atmosphere takes in via the surface (in other words “the surface” has a larger mass that just the physical surface of the planet.) There cannot be any violation of any physical law in this.
It makes no sense to say that a surface cannot warm an atmosphere through conduction/convection, which in essence is what Willis and others are saying.
The basis of the NZ/Stephen Wilde theory is simple and elegant. For the life of me I can’t see why it’s so hard to see.
Don132
“… has a larger mass tha(n) just the physical surface of the planet”
Energy absorbed = surface plus atmosphere, since the atmosphere is conducting and convecting with the surface: the body absorbing energy includes the atmosphere. It is would be unphysical if the atmosphere didn’t conduct with the surface of the imaginary planet surrounded by many suns.
Therefore, energy out must also = surface plus atmosphere.
There is no contradiction.
Don132
Correct.
There are some who are now ‘getting it’.
N & Z set out observations that many others have alluded to.
I have provided the specific mechanism.
AGW theory is dead in the water having excluded non radiative energy transfers between surface and atmospheric mass.
If a denser gas gets hotter than a less dense one, due to ‘amplification’ , there must be a trivial experiment that can prove/disprove this.
This makes it good science, something that can be falsified
Dr Spencer makes the following statement:
“The SB equation always results in a surface temperature that is too cold compared to surface temperatures when an atmosphere is present, and greenhouse theory is traditionally invoked to explain the difference.”
True, but how rigorously has this been challenged? Also, the greenhouse theory is full of other claims, many of them dubious. For example, it warms by down welling photon emission, but it is clear that there is a much higher probability that the energy in the atmosphere is dissipated via collisions than via photon emission.
It is not clear how this down welling IR warms our planet which is 72% water because IR cannot penetrate water and can only warm the surface molecules causing evaporation.
Glib explanations become sound science if we are not careful. Am I correct in thinking that when we introduce the atmosphere in the above mind experiment, we introduce the oceans too? But then in our eagerness to find a role for CO2, we ignore our water planet.
Could it be that the massive heat capacity of the oceans provides a storage radiator effect and buffer action, providing heat which remains on our planet beyond the timescales of the atmospheric radiation balance? That heat is topped up daily by solar short wave radiation but the opacity of water to IR radiation provides the thermal lag.
The GH effect may exist, but heat effectively trapped in our oceans does the same job but on a more massive scale. Who needs greenhouse gases?
SC
You make a good point which is mirrored in my oceanic ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’
However, the energy that the oceans are able to hold is constrained by atmospheric pressure on the ocean surface since atmospheric pressure determines the energy cost of the phase change from liquid water to gaseous water vapour.
Thus in the end what matters most is the weight of atmospheric mass which determines how much solar energy comes to be stored as an energy reservoir within the atmosphere as potential energy which is not heat and which does not radiate but yet is capable of making the surface temperature higher than the S-B prediction beneath regions of descending air and ultimately as per my description the entire planetary surface.
A number of contributors to this thread have got the point and I recommend that Anthony, Roy, and Willis carefully reconsider their positions.
Oh goody, look, another “scientific” argument in favor of CO2 being the driver of climate.
“But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.”
Your entire argument looks at the Earth and boils it down to physical surface and solar radiation input. How extremely scientific of you!
How can you prove this? Show the equations. Prove what you claim, do not be the IPCC and other propagandist loses.
You ignore that the atmosphere picks up energy as it blows past heated earth, conduction. The warmed air rises, convection, moving the heat energy upwards and allowing new air to absorb energy from the surface. A process which is constant and ongoing.
This activity of conduction/convection moves the effective Stephen-Boltzmann temperature line up through the atmosphere.
The radiation active (greenhouse for morons) molecules may have some effect, but they also act to cool as they allow the atmosphere to lose energy that it otherwise would not be able to get rid of.
Looking at the evidence, I would put my money on atmospheric pressure, through conduction/convection as the greater driver of the higher than calculated Stephen-Boltzmann near earth temperatures.
How is the search for climate sensitivity to CO2 going? have you narrowed it down over the last 40 years even a tiny bit?
In winter, the troposphere mass over the winter hemisphere is falling.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
astonerii January 1, 2019 at 10:42 am
Say what??? This is NOT an argument in favor of CO2. It is an argument, actually a proof, that N&Z’s hypothesis is wrong. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with CO2.
w.
“Say what??? This is NOT an argument in favor of CO2. It is an argument, actually a proof, that N&Z’s hypothesis is wrong. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with CO2.”
Where does the BONUS 33C temperature come from then?
You just hand waved away what I think many people would intuitively be able to see as a cause of additional warmth.
AStonerII, I didn’t “hand wave away” anything regarding CO2 or the “BONUS 33C temperature”, because I SAID NOTHING ABOUT EITHER ONE!! Those are totally separate questions.
Best of the New Year to you,
w.
Anthony,
“I still like the use of a simple hand-held IR thermometer to demonstrate that the cold atmosphere can actually cause a warmer surface to become warmer still [and, no, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated])”
Two comments on this quote:
1. The temperature of the thermopile in the IR meter does not increase when it is pointed at a colder object. The thermopile has two ‘ends’, one of which has the observation light focused on it and the other end does not. The end of the thermopile exposed to the observation will usually read a different temperature result than the unexposed other end of the thermopile. The delta in temperature between the ‘observing’ end and the ‘unobserving’ end induces a tiny electric current which drives the temperature display, according to the calibration of the meter. The temperature of the observation can be above or below the original temperature of the exposed end of the thermopile. If it is above, the thermopile end will increase in temperature. If it is below, the temperature will decrease. In either case, the current induced is due to the delta in temperature between the two ‘ends’ of the thermopile, not due to an increase in temperature of the exposed ‘end’.
So, I believe that you are mistaken when you say that an IR meter demonstrates that a colder atmosphere can increase the temperature of an already warmer object.
The intuitive thought experiment that demonstrates this error is the ice cubes paradox. If a colder object can indeed further increase the temperature of a warmer object, how many ice cubes do you have to surround a pot of water with to make it boil? The answer is obvious … no amount of extra ice cubes will make the pot boil … or even increase its temperature at all.
2. Your ‘demonstrate’ link in the final paragraph of your post points to the Roy Spencer post ‘Direct Evidence of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect’ which shows the difference in temperature observed when pointing an IR meter at a cloud compared to pointing it at open sky. This difference observed is then erroneously described as the ‘greenhouse effect’.
A visible cloud is water droplets, not water vapor. Water vapor is invisible. The extra heat you measure when you point the meter at a cloud is the latent heat being released as the water vapor condenses into those water droplets. That is not the greenhouse effect.
Best regards
Water vapor is a surface temperature controller. In the summer, the lack of water vapor in the air increases the surface temperature, in winter the opposite.
Meanwhile, the surface temperature of the ocean drops again.
Hypothesis, Conclusions and Data here :
GH Hypothesis v. NZ
Conclusions
Planets
They get mars wrong
Ned effectively tosses out all the modern studies, and validates against a narrow set of IR measurements
made in the late 60s and early 70s, and even there he misrepresents the data
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-017-0360-x
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Pv= nrt
Climate scientists compared earth with and without an atmosphere and attributed the difference in retained heat to greenhouse gas. That was their mistake.
The bigger difference was the presence of oceans, the heat storage system that maintains our planet at a steady temperature.
Our oceans admit short wave solar radiation every day, but heat transfer within the oceans is poor, creating a delay in cooling. The heat capacity is high, about 4000 times that of air. Our oceans warm the atmosphere, not the other way around.
The earth’s greenhouse effect is due primarily to heat retained in the oceans. CO2 has a minor effect.
Taking a simple example of a real black body that is at a distance from the sun to be 250 K with a transparent atmosphere for all wavelengths that has a real top of the atmosphere at 10 km up. If still good enough conduction of heat to the atmosphere for convection of air, you will have a TOA about 150 K.
If the atmosphere is completely opaque, the TOA is 250 K and (assuming still circulation of air) the surface is 350 K.
If some of the outgoing radiation is from the surface so that the TOA is 188 and the surface 288, then changing the opacity so that the TOA is 190 will mean a surface warming to 290 because of the effect compression and PV work on expansion. There is no argument of second law of thermodynamics because of the reasons for the temperature difference in the first place, which has nothing to do with radiative transfer of heat. What is really argued by the second law of thermodynamics and the LWIR not being able to warm the ocean is that heat flow should be so much more rapid outwards than down to the surface that with a GHE, that 100 K can’t be the same.
Then there is the condensation of water and many other things to consider like the difference in mean surface temp of the equator of the moon and Earth can be explains by a narrow temperature range of 30 K of the ocean surfaces compared to 300 K so that’s where my handwaving argument ends.
Robert B January 1, 2019 at 12:39 pm Edit
Not true. The top of the atmosphere will be at the same temperature as the bottom. See here for a proof.
w.
Hello Willis.
That alleged ‘proof” deals only with an isolated column which limits free convective overturning and thus is not applicable to an atmosphere around a sphere illuminated on one side.
You can see how daft the idea is by considering the total energy content of a gas molecule at the boundary of space. It would be at the same temperature as the surface AND have a full load of potential energy attributable to its height off the surface. Surface molecules would only have kinetic energy and no potential energy. Such an unbalanced total energy profile would prevent hydrostatic equilibrium because at all points in the vertical column the upward pressure gradient force would be in excess of the downward force of gravity and the atmosphere could not be retained.
I have often been surprised by that author’s blind spots given his eminence.
Willis,
The following quote is from poster “Joules Verne” on the thread you linked to above.
Once again, we are discussing models, models that fail to capture all of the blindingly difficult complexity of the climate system, but that’s OK because Einstein used thought experiments. Sorry I don’t agree; the trick is knowing how far to simplify and then go no further (William of Ockham).
The simplest possible geometric model that capture’s the main elements of a planet’s climate system is a 2-dimensional model. This is because all planets with a fluid atmosphere have a lit side that receives solar energy, and an unlit side that receives heat by atmospheric advection, as Stephen Wilde states. It doesn’t matter that the planet is not rotating, mobile fluids do what mobile fluids always do, they move and by moving carry heat energy with them. The dark side of the planet is a thermal exhaust surface that must be continuously fed with heat, else the atmosphere will freeze onto it and the whole globe will return to a no atmosphere vacuum.
By using a 1-dimensional planetary model with a totally transparent atmosphere, and then claiming that the thermal profile of this atmosphere will be isothermal, because it cannot radiate energy from itself is going too far. I admit that some modelers have resorted to using a zero-dimensional model as the basis for climate studies, but I hope that even you will recognise that this is too far down the rabbit hole. With a zero-dimensional model we are clearly in “the number of angels dancing on the head of a zero-dimensional pin” territory.
We must stop at a 2-dimensional model to have any hope of preserving one of the key irreducibles of planetary climate, namely it is always night-time over half of the surface of any and all planets. A mobile atmosphere is fundamental to the existence of climate on a globe lit by a single sun.
Philip Mulholland January 2, 2019 at 5:18 am
If you have found something wrong with Dr. Brown’s proof, now would be the time to identify it, quote it, and tell us what is wrong.
Absent that, I’m sorry, but I see nothing wrong with his proof so I’m going to agree with it and NOT with you.
w.
Willis,
You posted a link “See here for a proof”.
The closed thread you point to has 1,011 comments in reply, which I have been skimming for the last day. Assuming a reading and comprehension rate of one comment per minute, that is some 16 hours 51 minutes of homework, so I’ll pass on that one. Not because the thread and the arguments aren’t interesting, there are some real gems in there, but because you have failed to address my key point concerning the application of Ockam’s Razor to the process of simplification, namely thus far but no further.
A while ago I asked you about the dawn wind, the surface manifestation of air movement across the terminator. Stephen Wilde’s point concerns this link between these two irreducible components of a planet’s climate, namely night and day.
A model of the system you are studying is only useful as long as it preserves the key fundamentals of that system. A one-dimensional static column model of the atmosphere is a step too far. Climate is a dynamic system that requires a minimum of 2 dimensions. Climate connects the light side with the dark side. I think you need to move over to the dark side in order to see the light.
Philip, I dealt with the “dawn wind” in my comment elsewhere in this thread.
w.
@ WE, Sorry for the late reply. The problem with the example is that even argon cools by radiating heat. Slowly but it does and the example in no way addresses how much heat transfer is needed to get circulation. Is 1 ppb enough of a GHG to get your 9.8°/km temperature gradient?
Another is that the molecules are individual masses in a vacuum until they collide. They accelerate downwards in between collisions. The adiabatic lapse rate is a theoretical case where the GPE is magically converted to heat or heat to GPE. PV work is an explanation for why but if you have a pressure gradient due to gravity, you should expect a temperature one as well.
None of this proves that the GHE doesn’t exist. This is about the assumption that the ocean needs to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere ie half the outgoing LWIR comes back down and 90% goes into the oceans.
Robert, no, argon does NOT cool by radiation at earthlike temperatures. It is a monatomic molecule which does NOT either emit or absorb longwave IR.
w.
From the article:
In all fairness, I think that this is, at best, a gross overstatement, and, at worse, an outright falsehood. See — https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/ … for some deeper perspective on why I say this, … , and specifically, see — https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/comment-page-2/#comment-15281 … for a rebuttal to the famous “Equation 8” supposed debunking.
While being a likeable and friendly contributor, Willis E and I are not in accord [understatement] on certain major concepts.
The links are very good. The problem of arbitrary decoupling is there very nicely exposed.
Robert Kernodle January 1, 2019 at 1:06 pm
Robert, Nikolov said NOTHING in his reply that negates my proof.
He also made up the Mars temperature to fit his model and did NOT use the more accurate of my two models to compare to his. My more accurate model has only three-quarters of the RMS error that his has … so he ignored it entirely. Of course, they both are bogus, just meaningless curve fitting.
NASA says Mars temperature is about 210K … Nikolov says it is 30°C cooler, which by a huge coincidence means his formula gives the right answer. NASA also says Mars atmospheric pressure = 600 pascals, Nikolov says 685. And here’s the kicker—for Nikolov’s formula to give the right answer, the Martian atmospheric pressure would have to be 21,400 pascals, thirty times the actual value.
Next, I just tried applying his model to the Martian moon Phobos, and the dwarf planet Ceres. In both cases it is wildly inaccurate. The Martian moon Phobos is at about the same temperature as Mars, but has no atmosphere … how does that work? And Ceres has a very thin atmosphere, almost non-existent … but for his formula to work it would have to have an atmospheric pressure about a hundred times that of Mars.
Finally, his model does not include surface albedo. This means that for two planets with the same atmosphere, one white and one black, it will give the same temperature … riiiight …
Bad scientist … no cookies. WAKE UP AND RUN THE NUMBERS YOURSELF, ROBERT! Believing Nikolov is a mug’s game. The information is all in his paper. Come back when you know what you’re talking about.
w.
From the layman’s plain English description of Zeller & Nikolov’s “discovery” at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Zeller-Nikolov-climate-by-Christopher-Calder-Al-Gore_Al-Gore_Biofuels_Climate-Change-181228-572.html that I pointed to yesterday, which Nikolov has said is a good accurate description:-
“The Zeller-Nikolov climate finding uses official NASA data to quantify the average temperatures of the hard-surfaced satellite bodies orbiting our Sun. The formula is not applicable to the gas planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Zeller and Nikolov claim to be able to determine the long-term average temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune) by using just two informational values: their distance from the Sun and their atmospheric pressure.
Zeller and Nikolov have found that the gaseous composition of atmospheres is immaterial to determining long-term average temperatures. For example, the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, while Earth’s atmosphere contains only .04% carbon dioxide, yet those vast differences are irrelevant to the mathematical calculations required to determine average temperatures. This mathematical proof tells us that even though Venus has 2,412 times more carbon dioxide than Earth measured as a percentage of its atmosphere, that CO2 has no measurable effects on its average long-term temperature. Zeller and Nikolov claim that carbon dioxide and all the other atmospheric gases only contribute to temperature by their physical mass and resultant atmospheric pressure. They point out that their predictions for planets and moons are accurate to within one degree Celsius, a confidence-inspiring finding so precise that coincidence can reasonably be ruled out.
The Zeller-Nikolov discovery means that Earth’s atmosphere keeps us warm via gas-compression heating under the weight of Earth’s approximately 300-mile-thick atmosphere, not by the greenhouse effect. The tremendous gravitational pull on the enormous mass of Earth’s atmosphere combined with solar radiation warms our planet just enough to allow carbon-based life forms to flourish.
If carbon dioxide was the powerful greenhouse gas alarmists claim it to be, the calculations for Venus would have to be dramatically different than the calculations for Earth, but they are the same. This tells us that CO2 has no measurable direct effect on planetary temperature, which makes perfect sense as the Earth has experienced severe ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.”
This would be a very significant conclusion especially now that there are governments setting energy, environment policies and taxes based on an assumption that IPCC reports are correct that atmospheric CO2 causes increasing temperature and controls climate. Is this conclusion from Z&N’s discovery being disputed here now? If so on what basis?
Alan, yes the conclusions of NZ are being disputed. Willis and Anthony are well-known skeptics of the NZ theory, to the point that generally they don’t entertain any of that theory here. But since Willis has supposedly refuted NZ in his “planet with a multiple suns” model (but he hasn’t; he failed to account for incoming energy added to the atmosphere) then Anthony thought it well to trumpet Willis’s accomplishment, sanctioned by Spencer. But, bother Willis and Roy are wrong. If an atmosphere without greenhouse gases can absorb energy (through conduction/convection with the surface) and it can, then it’s impossible for that fact to violate any physical law. So a violation is invented by assuming that energy “in” only equals energy hitting the surface, and energy out equals energy hitting the surface PLUS energy from the atmosphere. Therefore, says Willis, the planet is emitting more than it receives, which is impossible, hence NZ are wrong.
But, NZ are not wrong by this argument, which proves absolutely nothing because it’s flawed.
On what basis do they disagree with NZ? There is no real basis for disagreement with NZ, except to insist that what NZ assert is atmospheric compressional heating (which they don’t) or to accuse them of curve fitting because they found variables that apply to all planets with sufficiently dense atmospheres, whereas the greenhouse theory cannot be applied to all planets in a universal formula.
“The Zeller-Nikolov discovery means that Earth’s atmosphere keeps us warm via gas-compression heating… ” as you quote above. I do not believe this is correct. I do not believe that NZ anywhere say that compression heats an atmosphere; rather, compression makes the atmosphere more dense and a denser atmosphere is able to hold more energy when it contacts a surface that’s warmed by the sun. All the energy of the atmosphere is concentrated at the surface because that’s where all the density is.
Luckily we’re all being more-or-less gentlemen and gentlewomen about this so it’s good to hash it out in a civil atmosphere. I suspect tempers may flair as things get closer to the bone, but I hope we can all maintain some good humor in the New Year!
Don132
I am amazed at that deliberate false attribution repeated here even when fully discussed in 2012. That “compression heating” quote in the lead is worse than fake news.
I should have expected it though. This did not start recently.
bonbon
As per my narrative style description of the relevant non-radiative processes that lead to the mass induced greenhouse effect it would be better to say that it is caused by a continuous cycle of decompression and compression within the convective overturning of an atmosphere at hydrostatic equilibrium.
Compression is involved but has to be accompanied by equal decompression for long term persistence.
As Don suggests you could just skip the decompression and compression process and say
“compression makes the atmosphere more dense and a denser atmosphere is able to hold more energy when it contacts a surface that’s warmed by the sun ”
but that begs the question as to how it works to heat the surface above S-B which is where my description comes in and you need to invoke a constant ongoing decompression and compression for that.
Try another tack. Take some tritium/deuterium, pressure it with a fission shock, THEN irradiate with an Xray pulse. It seems to me this enhanced mechanism is already 70 years in use with well known results. Why did it take so long to enter climatology, I wonder? None of the physics is “secret”…
Could it be the decades-long deliberate trashing of fusion is the cause of Climate Craziness?
@ bonbon
The Cockcroft-Walton accelerator, invented in the 1930s, won a Nobel prize for the authors.
It accelerates 2H at 200,000 volts to a 3H target and produces 14.7 MeV neutrons and He. (I have used one.)
This is about the lowest fusion reaction that occurs. It is possible at low energy because the quantum interaction distance of the two nuclei extends out farther than the electromagnetic repulsion.
The stated 37 degrees C (which is the average human body temperature prior to viral attack) corresponds to 310 Kelvin (K) (Celsius temp plus 273). If we enter the Venus altitude-versus-temperature graph at 310 K and go straight up (red line) to the temperature profile, and then horizontally to the left axis we find a corresponding altitude of 52.5 kilometers (33 miles).
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
Thus, a unity of physics not only explains ∼0.1 bar tropopauses
in thick Solar System atmospheres but also has the implication of potentially constraining exoplanet habitability.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.8585&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.”
The conclusion contradicts the initial premise. I’d call it Schrödinger’s heat. The energy gained would have to go up for the radiative loss to go up. The Zeller-Nikolov postulate is about pressure and not *increasing* pressure. It’s a vacuous and messy refutation.
How to resolve the NZ arguments:
1.(a) The internal energy of gas molecules at equilibrium depends only on temperature, not pressure.
(b) For diatomic molecules like N2 and O2, and linear molecules like CO2, there are 3 translational degrees of freedom and 2 rotational degrees of freedom. By the principle of Equipartition of Energy at normal temperatures, each degree of freedom provides k/2 to the heat capacity per molecule, so the total heat capacity per molecule is 5k/2 where k is the Boltzmann constant; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity .
2. (a) In the Ideal Gas model for normal temperatures and pressures, the molecules are approximated by point particles so we don’t have to worry about the volume of the molecules themselves, which is about 1/1000 of the volume of the space they move around in. Now imagine all the point particles placed inside a flat plastic freezer bag, which now expands as the gas molecules collide with the inner surface of the bag. These molecules therefore do work, W = Fd = PAd = PV , where pressure P = F/A and V=Ad is the volume of the bag and A is the surface area which is pushed out through distance d against the surrounding air which exerts pressure P.
(b) By conservation of total energy, the average kinetic energy of the molecules and therefore the temperature would decrease. But at thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air, the molecules would gain heat from the surroundings to make up this energy, of amount PV.
(c) For one mole of molecules, PV = RT (by the Ideal Gas Equation), so the energy gained would be RT per mole, or kT per molecule, since k = R divided by Avogadro’s Number.
(d) Since heat capacity per molecule is the rate of change of energy with temperature, the heat capacity at constant pressure, Cp , would therefor be k per molecule greater than 5k/2 for linear molecules. Hence Cp = 7k/2.
(e) Cp.T has units of joules (energy) and is given a special name, enthalpy (heat content). H = Cp.T = 7kT/2 for linear molecules. This incorporates the effect of pressure of the atmosphere, but clearly is a function only of temperature.
3.(a) The most useful application of this knowledge for climate science is in deriving the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
(b) Near the Earth’s surface, the gravitational potential energy of a gas molecule is U = mgh , where m is the molecular mass, h is the height above the Earth’s surface, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
(c) If no heat is exchanged with the surroundings (i.e. the change is adiabatic, by definition), then as gas molecules rise against gravity, U increases at the expense of heat content, H. I.e. dU/dh = – dH/dh .
(d) Using the Chain Rule for derivatives, dH/dh = (dH/dT)(dT/dh), so
d(mgh)/dh = -[d(7kT/2)/dT](dTdh)
mg = – (7k/2)(dT/dh)
dT/dh = -2mg/(7k) which is the adiabatic lapse rate [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate ]
(e) Dry air is 78.1% by volume N2 (molar mass 28.0 g), 21.0% O2 (molar mass 32.0 g) and 0.9% argon (molar mass 39.95 g), so the average molar mass of dry air is 0.781(28.0) + 0.210(32.0) + 0.009(39.95) = 28.95 g = 0.02895 kg.
(f) The average molecular mass for dry air is therefore 0.02895 kg/(6.022 x 10^23) = 4.81 x 10^-26 kg .
(g) Therefore on substituting this and g = 9.81 m/s^2 and k = 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K , we derive the dry adiabatic lapse rate as -9.8 x 10^-3 K/m = -9.8 K/km.
(h) Because we have not included water vapour (molar mass 18.0 g) which varies in concentration, this is the DRY adiabatic lapse rate. We have also ignored the fact that the monatomic gas Ar does not have any rotational degrees of freedom so that its heat capacity at constant pressure is only 5k/2, not 7k/2, but because Ar is less than 1% by volume, the error is only 0.26%.
(i) The result of this calculation says that as altitude increases, the temperature should decrease linearly, at a rate of 9.8 K drop for every km rise. This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of greenhouse gases, or the emission of infrared (IR) radiation from the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
4. Of course, net absorption of IR emitted from the solid and liquid surface of the Earth, and condensation or sublimation of water molecules into liquid droplets or ice crystals in the troposphere alters the magnitude of the lapse rate, to -6.8 K/km.
5.(a) To understand the mechanism of the greenhouse effect (which is real, so the NZ theory is wrong), we have to go to the Schwarzschild Equation [see the section “Schwarzschild’s Equation” at https://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ ].
(b) The integrated form of this equation is I = Io.exp(-KCL) + B[1 – exp(-KCL)] where I is the radiation intensity at any height h, Io is the initial radiation intensity at h=0, K is the absorption coefficient, C is the concentration, and L is the path length for absorption. B is the Planck function for emission.
(c) Dividing each side of the equation by Io gives I/Io = exp(-KCL) + (T/288)^4 [1 – exp(-KCL) ] where I/Io is the signal for CO2 in the spectrum. Because the peak for Planck black body radiation from the Earth’s hard deck surface at 288 K is close to the 667 cm^-1 band frequency for CO2 bond-bending vibration, B/Io can be approximated by (T/288)^4 where the 4th power comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
(d) If absorption is 100%, exp(-KCL) = 0, so the signal = (T/288)^4 , which is the relative Stefan-Boltzmann emission from a black body (compared to that of the Earth at 288 K). This corresponds to Kirchhoff’s Law that a good absorber is a good emitter, and applies to spectral lines that are completely saturated, for example CO2 at 667 cm^-1 , where the emission at the TOA corresponds to that of a 220 K Planck black body (see the MODTRAN spectrum at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , which closely simulates actual satellite spectra such as that at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 (see the third Fig.).
(e) This complete absorption followed by complete emission also applies to molecular transitions between closely spaced energy levels, where the gap is small compared to molecular kinetic energies (3kT/2 for translation). At 220 K, 3kT/2 = 4.55 x 10^-21 J .
(f) In the section “Satellite Temperatures” by Roy Spencer at https://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ , molecular oxygen emissions at 50-60 GHz are used to monitor temperature. The energy of a 60 x 10^9 s^-1 photon is given by (6.63 x 10^-34 J.s)(60 x 10^9 s^-1) = 3.98 x 10^-23 J , where we have used the value of Planck’s constant. This is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the average translational kinetic energy of a gas molecule at 220 K.
(g) So unsurprisingly this molecular oxygen emission fits that of a 220 K Planck black body. 60 GHz corresponds to a wavelength of (3.00 x 10^10 cm/s)/(60 x 10^9 s^-1) = 0.50 cm , where we have used the speed of light in cm/s. This corresponds to a wavenumber (number of waves per cm) of 1/0.50 cm = 2 cm^-1.
Now locate this wavenumber at the left side of the MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , which shows that the signal in the spectrum for wavenumbers below 200 cm^-1 approach that of a 220 K Planck black body. This is 2 orders of magnitude higher in wavenumber than 2 cm^-1.
(h) But for signals at wavenumbers greater than 200 cm^-1, the satellite spectrum departs from smooth Planck black body spectral curves. The downward bites correspond to net absorption by water vapour and CO2, not emission, except for the 220 K truncation at 667 cm^-1 .
(i) How can this be? Take a CO2 line which is far from saturated even over the total 10 km path length of the troposphere (this occurs for transitions from the v=1 first vibrationally excited state which correspond to only about 3% of all CO2 molecules). Suppose the exp(-KCL) term in the Schwarzschild Equation equals 0.80, corresponding to a Beer-Lambert transmission of 80% (or an absorption of 20%). Then the second term on the right side of the equation equals (220/288)^4 [1 – 0.80] = 0.34(0.20) = 0.068 , so the total signal is 0.80 + 0.068 = 0.87 . The Beer-Lambert absorption of 0.20 has been modified by the 0.068 emission term, but the result is still a net absorption of 0.13.
(j) What happens to this net energy absorption? A CO2 molecule in the v=1 vibrational state is boosted to the v=2 second excited state on absorption of an IR photon emitted from the 288 K surface of the Earth. This v=2 excited state can drop back down to the v=1 initial state on re-emission of a photon, and the net result would be scattering of a photon, with no net energy change.
(j) However, at normal atmospheric pressure, air molecules collide about 10^10 times a second, so even at 10 km where the pressure is 1/4 that at sea level, there is a high probability that the v=2 excited state will be quenched on collision with other air molecules, most probably N2 or O2. The vibrational energy lost on collision ends up as translational and rotational energy of the departing molecules. Within a few collisions, the energy gets distributed among many molecules, the net result being a slight rise in temperature (which is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules).
(k) Do CO2 molecules end up with slightly increased energy and temperature as well? Sure, but at 400 ppmv CO2 , they are outnumbered by N2 and O2 molecules by a ratio of 1,000,000:400 = 2,500:1 . Since the linear molecules N2, O2 and CO2 all have heat capacities at constant pressure of 7k/2 , 2500 times more energy is stored in N2 and O2 molecules compared to CO2.
(l) Why don’t N2 and O2 molecules re-emit IR photons to outer space? They are homonuclear diatomic molecules with no permanent or changing electric dipole moment, so they absorb and emit virtually zero IR photons (this does not contradict Roy Spencer’s measurements which involve microwave photons). Ditto for the monatomic molecule Ar.
(m) This is the true mechanism for the greenhouse effect: greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR emitted from the Earth’s surface, and transfer energy to non-emitting gas molecules that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere. The net decrease in photon flux outward at the TOA means that for energy balance the continuous incoming Solar visible radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface now raises the temperature until the emitted surface flux minus the flux absorbed by the troposphere (some 123 W/m^2 on the MODTRAN spectrum) once again balances the net incoming Solar flux.
(n) What about back radiation? An IR spectrometer looking upward from the Earth’s surface at night at “window” frequencies (e.g. at 900 cm^-1) detects zero signal, showing that the troposphere itself is not a Planck black body (N2, O2 and Ar do not emit IR photons). Back radiation from CO2 and water vapour central frequencies does exist, at intensities close to 288 K on average. This simply means that the Earth’s surface and the strongly absorbing/emitting molecules are physically close to each other (100% absorption occurs within tens of metres). At equilibrium, surfaces at the same temperature exchange energy at equal rates, but neither continues to warm each other up forever by some kind of bootstrap mechanism.
(o) For example, consider the Earth’s surface emitting 10 W/m^2 which is 100% absorbed by some greenhouse gas molecules near the surface. This opaque layer would then emit 10 W/m^2 (since it is at essentially the same temperature) both upward and 10 W/m^2 downward. How can 10 W/m^2 power a total of 20 W/m^2 from the opaque greenhouse gas layer? It can’t. The 10 W/m^2 downward is essentially powered by another 10 W/m^2 upward from the Earth’s surface (there is no power available from incoming Sunlight at this frequency). The 10 W/m^2 up and 10 W/m^2 down cancel each other. There is no net change in temperature of either the Earth’s surface or the opaque absorbing layer. The back radiation is just one means of balancing heat flow between layers at the same temperature (conduction by gases is very poor, and convection only works upward). This point has been missed in the literature.
Roger Taguchi ,
Thank you for the clear and well reasoned comment. It would be very informative for the general discussion on IR if you would submit it as a guest post here on WUWT. Basically, move it from the end of a long discussion to a top post.
No, let’s hash it out first before assuming it’s the definitive answer.
If radiative effects are so important to the atmosphere’s temperature profile, then why are they not used in the actual calculation of that profile?
Those who promote the radiative paradigm seem to see pressure as just something that makes the lapse rate work– that’s all. Those who promote the thermodynamic paradigm of NZ and Wilde and others see pressure as central. I look at it from a more practical view: the weight of pressure per square meter is equivalent to something like 20 grand pianos. I know how heavy grand pianos are! Let me tell you, they’re way heavy (scientific unit.) I know that this is huge pressure, and I find it hard to believe that it’s just sitting around waiting to help move the lapse rate along.
NZ make sense: pressure = density and the near-surface molecules densely packed-in acquire energy from the sun via the surface, and the translational kinetic energy of these molecules (i.e., “temperature”) is distributed throughout the atmosphere and account for the larger portion of the temperature of the planet (along with ocean heating.) The effects of the translational energy of all (or a majority of) the molecules in the atmosphere are more powerful than the radiative effects of a small portion of the atmosphere. Radiative effects happen within this milieu, but in themselves aren’t powerful enough to raise the temperature of the planet above black-body. That we can see absorption and emission of greenhouse gases isn’t all that important in the bigger scheme of things that’s dictated by the tremendous weight of the atmosphere, and we see this same relationship of atmospheric density and insolation with temperature throughout our solar system, whereas we see no consistent relationship of temperature with atmospheric content (including GHGs.)
So far as I can tell, what’s happening is that those who hold that radiative effects are paramount are opposed by those who hold that thermodynamic effects are paramount. This debate may simply be a clash of paradigms that can’t be resolved, although it may be, as some have pointed out, that both views are right to some degree.
Glad to see everyone is staying civil!
Don132
Re Don’s comment of Jan. 2 at 6:00 am “If radiative effects are so important to the atmosphere’s temperature profile, then why are they not used in the actual calculation of that profile?” This is truly an excellent question to which I offer this answer:
1. In Point 3 of my previous post, I derived the dry adiabatic lapse rate of -9.8 K/km. This means that if no heat is injected into each layer of the troposphere, the temperature decreases by 9.8 K for each km increase in altitude.
2.(a) Suppose there were a Planck black body gaseous layer transparent to the Sun’s incoming visible radiation but which completely absorbed all infrared (IR) photons emitted by the 288 K Earth’s solid and liquid surface.
(b) By Kirchhoff’s law that a good absorber is a good emitter, 100% absorption would be followed by 100% emission. For every W/m^2 emitted by the Earth’s surface, 1 W/m^2 would be emitted upward from the opaque black body and 1 W/m^2 would be emitted down as back-radiation. This seems to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. In Points 5(n) and 5(o) of my previous post, I explained that the back radiation simply ensures that there is thermal equilibrium with the Earth’s surface (the two are at the same temperature). So essentially the 288 K Planck black body emission surface of the Earth is extended to the top surface of the troposphere (at 10 km), which would be at 288 K emitting photons that escape to outer space. So 100% absorption of all frequencies means that there would be zero temperature difference between layers of the 10 km troposphere.
3.(a) The MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing shows a model average cloud-free Earth’s surface at 288.2 K producing a TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) flux of 260.12 W/m^2. Assuming emissivity 0.98, the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives a surface flux of 383.34 W/m^2.
(b) This means a transmission factor for the troposphere of 260.12/383.34 = 0.6786 , and the fraction absorbed is 1-0.6786 = 0.3214 = 32.14%.
(c) Because enthalpy change = delta H = Cp.(delta T) , where Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure, delta H = change in heat content is proportional to temperature change.
(d) So an absorption of 32.14% in flux would mean over time an absorption of 32.14% of energy = heat content, which would mean a change in temperature by 32.14%.
(e) Therefore for every km rise in altitude, the temperature change of 9.8 K would be moderated by 32.14%, i.e. by 0.3214(9.8 K) = 3.15 K.
(f) Therefore the predicted lapse rate should be -9.8 + 3.15 = -6.65 K/km , which differs from the observed lapse rate of -6.8 K/km by only 2.2% . I say that I have just theoretically explained the observed lapse rate from first principles, using data from the MODTRAN calculated IR absorption spectrum which very closely matches the observed spectra such as Fig. 3 at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 .
(g) Temperature profiles during winter at high latitudes (i.e. months of nighttime) show a temperature inversion in the first few hundred metres from the surface. This results from IR photons travelling from the Earth’s surface directly to space without being throttled by high water vapour in the troposphere and because the Planck black body emission at 233 K (-40 Celsius = -40 Fahrenheit) has little energy anyway at water vapour absorption frequencies above 1300 cm^-1. The heat stored as enthalpy in the troposphere in the summer can only be transferred to the cooling surface by conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction by gases is very poor, and convection generally works only upward, so back radiation by CO2 is the main mode of heat transport and becomes important when the surface temperature falls below that of the near atmosphere (heat, or net energy flow, spontaneously flows from hot to cold, not the other way around). So back radiation moderates the rate of radiation loss from the Earth’s surface, but still the surface cools and the temperature inversion can form.
4.(a) What about latent heat injected into the lower troposphere as water vapour condenses into liquid droplets or sublimes into ice crystals in clouds? Yes, this heat will moderate the 9.8 K dropoff in temperature for every km increase in height, so the lapse rate for the lower layer below the cloud tops should be, and is smaller in magnitude than 6.8 K/km.
(b) And cloud particles (liquid droplets or ice crystals) act like miniature Planck black bodies which absorb and then re-emit all IR frequencies, not just at greenhouse gas frequencies. So clouds themselves absorb more of the 383.34 W/m^2 emitted from the 288.2 K Earth’s surface than the same height of a cloudless troposphere. This explains why the 260.12 W/m^2 TOA emission of the MODTRAN spectrum is a whopping 20 W/m^2 higher than the average TOA flux of 240 W/m^2 measured by satellites.
(c) For 62% cloud cover, the TOA flux above clouds must average 228 W/m^2.
Check: 0.62(228) + 0.38(260) = 240.
(d) Therefore the lapse rate from Earth’s surface to cloud tops will also be smaller in magnitude than 6.8 K/km because of the absorption by the clouds themselves, after they have formed by water vapour phase changes.
(e) Energy balance by radiation is slow, requiring absorption followed by inelastic quenching collisions followed by further absorption followed by… etc. When heating by incoming Solar radiation is fast (such as on cloudless days), convection currents more rapidly transport heat to higher altitudes directly, as well as by transporting water vapour which can release latent heats on formation of clouds. In the case of thunderstorm anvils, the heat transported can extend the lapse rate all the way to 16 or 17 km. And winds rapidly transport heat horizontally as well as vertically.
(f) Despite all these caveats, the majority of temperature profiles of the troposphere show an overall lapse rate to 10 km of -6.8 K/km (the profiles form parallel lines). Yes, the surface temperature of the Earth obviously varies with latitude and time of the year, since the angle of the Sun varies, so the intercept of the profiles varies. But why parallel profiles?
(g) Here’s where the theoretical understanding of the origin of the observed lapse rate provides a bonus: the parallel profiles mean that on average each molecule of air in the troposphere (regardless of latitude or altitude) gets the same portion of the heat injected by whatever mechanism (latent heats, convection, cloud absorption, radiative exchange).
(h) This is consistent with the Principle of Equipartition of Energy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem ) which itself is explained by quantum statistical thermodynamics (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics ).
(i) Each molecule of air in the troposphere gets on average an equal share of injected heat because this is the most probable distribution of a fixed amount of energy among a fixed number of molecules.
(j) When there are equal energy quantum states (called degenerate states), the most probable distribution results when each energy state is equally populated by molecules.
(m) When there are quantum states with unequal energies, the most probable distribution is the Boltzmann distribution, a decreasing exponential function of energy.
(o) For example, the energy of rotating molecules is quantized, with energy proportional to
BJ(J+1) where B is the rotational constant and J is the rotational quantum number which can take on whole number values of J = 0, 1, 2, 3,….
(p) However, the energy levels for a given value of J are (2J+1)-fold degenerate, for the same reason that there are three different 2p orbitals, five different 3d orbitals, seven different 4f orbitals, etc. in atomic theory (they involve solving the same angular-dependent part of the Schrodinger Wave Equation).
(r) Therefore the number of molecules with a given value of J at any temperature is most probably proportional to (2J+1).exp[-BJ(J+1)hc/kT] where the (2J+1) pre-exponential factor takes care of the degeneracy of equal energy quantum states, and the decreasing exponential factor is the Boltzmann function of energy.
(s) This function, approximately an increasing linear function for low values of J, and approximately a decreasing exponential function for high values of J, explains the shape of the P- and R-branches of the infrared (IR) spectra of simple molecules such as that of HCl (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html ) and of CO2 (see Figs 6 & 10 in the section “Greenhouse gas spectra” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.html ).
(t) The CO2 IR spectrum also features a Q-branch, the tall spike in between the P- and R-branches. The Q-branch is formed from many, many very closely spaced lines formed between transitions when the rotational quantum number J does not change. Since the photon is a boson (i.e. a fundamental particle that follows Bose-Einstein statistics) with a spin of 1 (i.e. it carries one unit of angular momentum), conservation of angular momentum appears not to be conserved if J does not change by 1 unit. However, in the v=1 first vibrationally excited state in bond bending of CO2, the most probable configuration is bent (in the v=0 ground state, the CO2 molecule is linear), so the photon’s angular momentum is involved in change in angular rotation around the linear mean molecular axis.
(u) I have gone into some detail because climate change physics textbooks are simply wrong when they say that the tip of the Q-branch is a “temperature probe” from which you can deduce an altitude at which the photons escape to outer space. The molecules that emit the Q-branch lines are the same molecules that emit the P- and R-branch lines (and are therefore obviously at the same temperature). The Q-branch spike is not a single line, but it so prominent because it is the result of adding together many, many closely spaced lines!
I trust that I have destroyed the faith of many readers who have read the climate change literature without the background knowledge taught for more than 7 decades in molecular spectroscopy classes.
This link in Point 4(s) for the CO2 IR spectrum should (I hope) work: see Figs 6 & 10 in the section “Greenhouse gas spectra” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com .
To eyesonu, thank you for your comment. I dislike retyping the same arguments over and over again, and have no idea how to publish as a guest post (the Moderator might help at this point). However, I wouldn’t mind the entire Comment being published as a guest post, with the following corrections or additions:
1. In Point 2(d), (dTdh) should read (dT/dh)
2. In Points 5(a) and 5(f), the link should read http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ . This is a good website to learn a lot of the physics behind the greenhouse effect.
3. In Point 2(e), I should have added: “If external pressure P is higher, the final volume V of the freezer bag is smaller, since the molecules at a given temperature can do only so much work in expansion. The product, however, is PV = nRT (the Ideal Gas Equation), and for n=1 mole, PV = RT, and enthalpy (heat content) is therefore 7RT/2 per mole , or 7kT/2 per molecule for linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2.”
4. Don (in the Comment on Jan. 2, 2009 at 6:00 am) asked how radiative effects affect the temperature profile. See my Comment in reply, which I have already argued in previous Comments posted at WUWT. Maybe this could also be included in a single guest post so I don’t have to repeat in Comments that would otherwise go unread.
Roger,
Are you saying that pressure at the surface doesn’t affect the near-surface temperature, or that it has no influence? Trying to understand your position. Are you saying that NZ is junk science? Again, just trying to understand, not pick a fight.
Don132
Hi Don!
As so many others have commented, applying pressure to a fixed amount of gas means work is done in compressing it, so the energy ends up heating the gas: delta(PV) equals nR(deltaT) in magnitude. Heat flow to a cooler heat sink (the surroundings) then removes the temperature difference, so in the compressed state the heat content = 7RT/2 per mole for linear molecules depends only on the temperature T, and not the pressure.
So NZ is wrong.
Junk science is stuff that ignores facts (observations) or uses theoretical arguments that cannot be falsified (e.g. catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, formerly catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which had to have its name changed because the 18-year hiatus, despite continually increasing CO2 levels, showed little or no global warming).
Roger,
Thanks for the reply.
Let me see if I understand this: ” so in the compressed state the heat content = 7RT/2 per mole for linear molecules depends only on the temperature T, and not the pressure.” I agree. But, are you talking about the heat content of individual molecules, as opposed to the temperature of a gas? The two are not the same thing.
In Willis’ imaginary planet, is there is a heat sink since the atmosphere can’t radiate?
Please see my comment below:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2575281
The problem is that it makes no sense to say that in Willis’ imaginary planet, increasing surface pressure does not increase the average translational kinetic energy of a gas, which is how gas temperature is measured. That would violate the ideal gas law.
Don132
Roger, thanks for your exposition in some detail. I would add for your comment I hope, that the thermalisation you described well, being as you say orders of magnitude faster than radiative re-emittance, takes over the bulk of the uplift by mass transfer and Latent heat LH uplift. It is these events which make CO2 ineffective as a storer of heat, which gases lack the mass for anyway in the manner postulated as truth. There is a net flow of tropical air to Antarctica but it still sinls to as low as -95C. Martian sort of Temps in spite of its CO2 atmosphere too.
N and Z took a different angle to things we had been studying for some years, to demonstrate how simple it is to prove conditions on worlds widely disparate and especially of atmospheric gas compositions. It is empirically proven to work thanks to the Ideal Gas Laws. In the manner they descibe. All else is just fantasy. Even Sagan came to admit this. Brett
Roger,
Convection does not only work upward as witness all the high pressure cells around the globe which contain descending warming air.
Hi Stephen!
Doesn’t descending air from the centre of high pressure cells warm up mainly because
dH/dh = -dU/dh?
Here we do not have descending constant temperature air, but as gravitational potential energy U decreases as high pressure gas falls downward, -dU/dh in the absence of heat flow from or to the surroundings is (negative)(negative)/(negative) = negative, so dH is positive for negative dh. I.e. enthalpy increases as air descends, so temperature warms up.
This also explains the warming dry Chinook winds in Alberta Canada, as air stripped of its moisture by the Rocky Mountains falls downward along the Eastern slopes.
BTW I love your theory posted on JoNova’s website, but it will take some time for me to evaluate it. We are all trying to understand stuff that gets harder once you think you have it!
Hello Roger.
Yes, that is correct but I go a step further by pointing out that at any given moment half the atmosphere is in descending mode and that the heat generated within descent reduces surface cooling beneath the descending columns and then also advects horizontally to warm up the base of rising columns too.
Thus I aver that convection works downwards just as much as it works upwards. Indeed, there has to be equivalence in order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.
Glad you like my Jo Nova article which provides a proposed mechanism for solar control of climate variations if that is the one you are referring to.
By the way you should note that once one attributes the appropriate warming component to downward convection the observations of NZ and others are correct. Which is why I pointed it out to you.
Roger Taguchi January 1, 2019 at 5:43 pm
“(m) This is the true mechanism for the greenhouse effect: greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR emitted from the Earth’s surface, and transfer energy to non-emitting gas molecules that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere.”
How odd that you would think this without considering the opposite affect, which has been shown by the fact that more CO2 at the top of the atmosphere = more heat emitted to space. (2013 AGU Meeting)
You have clearly stated that the majority of the time the photon’s energy is lost to surrounding molecules due to collisions before it can be re-emitted.
So what happens to all the energy that the N2 & O2 molecules impart to CO2 molecules during collisions, surely the excited CO2 molecule now emitts a photon to release it?
Or are you saying that collisions do not impart energy to CO2 particles?
Can you also elaborate on this item “(b) Near the Earth’s surface, the gravitational potential energy of a gas molecule is U = mgh ”
What is this “gravitational potential energy ” you speak of?
To A C Osborn: Thanks for your two civil questions.
1. (a) Yes, constant collisions between air (N2, O2, Ar) molecules and trace CO2 (0.04%) will at equilibrium knock a few (approx. 3%) of the v=0 vibrational ground state CO2 molecules into the v=1 first excited state. These molecules will emit 667 cm^-1 infrared (IR) photons in all directions, and account for the 220K truncation of the downward CO2 absorption ditch in the MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing .
(b) However, MODTRAN calculations continued to 70 km (and not truncated at 20 km) show an increase in CO2 emission at 667 cm^-1 on doubling CO2. The reason is that the altitude at which these IR photons finally escape to outer space occurs between 20 and 50 km, where there is a temperature inversion (the temperature actually rises with increasing altitude) due to increasing absorption of incoming Solar visible and UV radiation by ozone in the stratosphere. See the section “The hard stuff” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ . This explains the TOA increase in EMISSION at 667 cm^-1 for lines that are essentially completely saturated in the troposphere. This would by itself result in cooling of the Earth’s surface (since less IR flux need be emitted for energy balance).
(c) However, the climate sensitivity results from net extra ABSORPTION of IR lines corresponding to transitions from the v=1 first excited state to the v=2 second excited state, at bands centered at 618 and 721 cm^-1 (see Diagram 3 in the section “Spectral transitions” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com ). It is the quenching of these rare v=2 states on collision with non-emitting N2, O2 and Ar molecules that is responsible for the extra net warming of the troposphere on doubling CO2 (the “enhanced greenhouse effect”). At 220 K, very few v=2 CO2 molecules are formed at equilibrium by collision alone.
(d) The fraction of molecules in the v=1 state 667 cm^-1 above the ground state is
exp[-(667 cm^-1)hc/kT] = 1.3% at 220 K , using h=6.63 x 10^-34 J.s, c=3.00 x 10^10 cm/s and k=1.38 x 10^-23 J.K. For the v=2 state 667+618 = 1285 cm^-1 above the ground state, the fraction is only 0.022% at 220 K.
[At 288 K, the fraction is 3.6% in v=1 , and 0.16% in v=2 at 288 K]
(e) The literature wrongly assumes that the TOA outgoing flux of 240 W/m^2 comes from a Planck black body at 255 K, calculated by plugging into the Stefan-Boltzmann Law using emissivity 1.
For a surface temperature of 288 K, and a lapse rate of 6.8 K/km, 255 K would correspond to an altitude of 4.9 km. But since the observed spectrum is decidedly NOT a smooth Planck black body spectrum, these calculations are physically meaningless. All IR photons do NOT escape at 4.9 km because the non-emitting N2, O2 and Ar molecules with trace greenhouse gases do not produce a Planck black body spectrum. Therefore the argument that doubling CO2 raises the altitude of emission from 4.9 km to a higher altitude where the temperature & emission are lower (so for energy balance the entire troposphere and surface must warm up) is all wrong.
(f) For unsaturated lines in the 618 and 721 cm^-1 sidebands, doubling CO2 simply increases the net absorption in the 10 km of the troposphere. Between 10 and 20 km, the temperature on average is constant at 220 K, so there is no further absorption (or emission), but the density of air (including CO2) decreases by another factor of 4 or more. So essentially all the net absorption is done in the troposphere for these unsaturated lines, and exceeds in magnitude the extra emission at 667 cm^-1 in the stratosphere from 20 to 50 km. The result: a positive enhanced greenhouse effect on doubling CO2.
2. U=mgh is the gravitational potential energy of any mass m at a height h above the Earth’s surface, and is equal to the work done W=Fd in lifting the mass of weight F=mg through a height h=d. For distances close to the Earth’s surface (10 km of the troposphere is small relative to the radius of the Earth), the acceleration due to gravity, g, is close to 9.8 m/s^2.
To A C Osborn: Thanks for your two civil questions.
1. (a) Yes, constant collisions between air (N2, O2, Ar) molecules and trace CO2 (0.04%) will at equilibrium knock a few (approx. 3%) of the v=0 vibrational ground state CO2 molecules into the v=1 first excited state. These molecules will emit 667 cm^-1 infrared (IR) photons in all directions, and account for the 220K truncation of the downward CO2 absorption ditch in the MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing .
One minor quibble with this, the 3% of the collisions are capable of transferring enough energy to excite the vibrational state, however not all of them will do so since the kinetic energy would have to be transferred at a certain orientation. Some of the energy could end up as translational or rotational energy of the CO2 molecule in which case a vibrational transition wouldn’t be possible. So in general to excite a particular vibration you’d need to include an orientation factor which makes the already small probability of an exciting collision even lower than the values you quote.
Could you please clarify that statement for someone who doesn’t know much radiation physics?
In particular, I recognize that the atmosphere’s radiative gases are not a black body. But my understanding had been that for every infrared wavelength received in space from a given latitude and longitude:
(1) there is an effective average altitude from which space receives that wavelength,
(2) the intensity of radiation received in space at that wavelength depends among other things on the air temperature at that effective average altitude,
(3) an increase in CO2 concentration would raise that effective average altitude, and
(4) if the resultant effective average altitude for that wavelength is in the troposphere, that altitude increase would because of the lapse rate reduce the radiation that space receives at that wavelength, at least until the surface temperature changes in response to the outgoing-radiation reduction.
Is anything in the passage I quoted inconsistent with that understanding?
Hi Joe!
You have diligently learned the literature explanation for the greenhouse effect, also available from Sir John Houghton at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 .
My argument from basic principles of physics and molecular spectroscopy is that it is all wrong. See my summary of this wrong theory in Point 1(e) in my post Jan. 2, 8:58 am above.
I’ve tried in several WUWT posts the last 2 days to explain the correct explanation, but I don’t want to repeat them here. You’ll have to scroll through the various Comments, I’m afraid. I do respect your desire to know, and the work you have done so far. And you show true sincere humility, not the ignorant arrogance of the true believers of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Best of luck.
Thanks anyway.
The reason I asked the question is that I had indeed read your item 1(e). But I found it conclusory and hoped you could explain it in a way I could understand. No doubt my failure to understand resulted from my limitations; I don’t know much radiation physics.
But much of my career involved basing judgments as a layman on what I was told by experts, and my bank account suffered when I accepted theories that the experts were unable to make me understand.
So for now I’ll stick to the explanation that folks like Richard Lindzen have given.
I nonetheless appreciate your input.
Roger, thank you for your reply.
However, it presents me with a problem.
If only 3% of the the CO2 molecules are affected and N2 & O2 cannot radiate how is the energy that they have absorbed from collisions with CO2 molecules released?
It has to be released overnight otherwise the Atmosphere would just continually heat.
Conduction and convection to the planet, particularly the ocean.
Roger, thank you very much, yes I think it has increased my understanding.
It appears to show that the CO2 molecule is completely mis-named, it is in fact a “Transfer” Molecule and it is O2 & N2 that are actually the greenhouse gases, ie they are the ones that store the energy until the CO2 can transfer it out of the system.
Who would have guessed.
@A.C.O.
The period of time a given N2 or O2 molecule stores energy is exceedingly short. At STP collisions among molecules (that transfer energy) are of the order of nano-seconds. For a C=O bond that has just increased its energy, the bond relaxation time before it can transfer that energy is a few micro-seconds. Hundreds of such energy transfers delay energy loss from Earth for only a very short time.
Most IR loss to space from the C=O bond occur from high in the atmosphere — at the emission height. Just how high that loss occur controls the IR loss rate. That is because of the atmosphere lapse rate, the rate that the atmosphere cools with height. Because temperature at the emission height is lower than near the surface, the IR loss rate from C=O slows, thus retaining energy relative to the case if all IR loss occurred from the surface or lower atmosphere. If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the emission height moves higher, where the atmosphere is cooler and the IR emission rate slows more. This is where and how most of the greenhouse effect occurs.
Water is similar but more complex, because it condenses before moving very high and because its global concentration is limited by condensation and is highly space variable. For these reasons, a molecule of water vapor is less efficient in the greenhouse process than is a molecule of CO2. But H2O molecules are much more numerous
Donb, only one problem with that, there are thousands more O2/N2 molecules than CO2 ones, so the collisions will be with other O2/N2 molecules and only rarely with CO2 ones which is needed to release the energy.
So maybe not quite so fast as you think.
@A.C.O. True
But C=O radiates energy in a complex manner. The 15 micron IR band is actually a few microns wide and contains several permitted quantum energy levels. Their probability is lower than the central 15u level. But, as CO2 increases, these other energy levels become increasing important in energy transfer. And, because of their lower absorption/emission, they emit from lower in the atmosphere, where it is warmer and the IR emission rate higher.
If you examine the C=O band as observed by satellite, you will see the widening of the 15u band and that the “wings” of the band are emitting at lower, warmer altitude.
To A C Osborn: glad to see you’re thinking.
1. IR flux is energy flow, so we must understand steady state conditions. You are right that during the daytime enthalpy (heat content) is stored in mainly non-radiating molecules N2, O2 and Ar.
2. At nighttime, there is no incoming Solar visible or UV radiation, so the Earth’s surface loses energy and cools by infrared (IR) radiation to outer space, and the atmosphere in contact with it cools by conduction (slow) and by winds.
3. As the number of excited state CO2 molecules in the v=1 state decreases by radiation to outer space, most (but not all) will be replaced by more v=1 states formed on collision with “hot” N2, O2 and Ar molecules which cool down. This is an example of LeChatelier’s Principle: If a stress is applied to a system at equilibrium, the equilibrium shifts in such a direction as to partially relieve that stress.
4. The equilibrium at any temperature is N2 + O2 + CO2 + energy = N2 + O2 + CO2* , where energy represents hot conditions (e.g. high translational energy of the N2 and O2 molecules) and CO2* represents vibrationally excited CO2 molecules. As CO2* decreases via radiation, the equilibrium shifts to the right, using up some of the energy of hot molecules to create more CO2* molecules. But as overall temperature decreases, the equilibrium % of CO2* also decreases slightly, so the shift in equilibrium only partially compensates for the loss of CO2* by radiation. Through innumerable molecular collisions, energy stored as enthalpy in hot N2 and O2 molecules during the daytime is transferred via CO2* molecules and thence radiation to outer space. So the N2 and O2 molecules lose energy not by radiation but by collisions with CO2 molecules which radiate.
5. During the daytime the equilibrium shifts to the left via creation of excess CO2* molecules on absorption of more IR photons emitted by a warming Earth’s surface. Repetition of the process produces cyclical daily and seasonal changes in temperature. So the “equilibrium” temperature is the average if the cycles are roughly sinusoidal. [The Moon’s temperature change is not sinusoidal because of its slow rotation rate, and the outward flux of IR is more than 80 times greater at daytime peak than at nighttime.]
Hope this helps, as the goal is to increase understanding.
@R.T.
Very nice summary, and I fully agree.
Sorry, my response went in the wrong place.
Roger, thank you very much, yes I think it has increased my understanding.
It appears to show that the CO2 molecule is completely mis-named, it is in fact a “Transfer” Molecule and it is O2 & N2 that are actually the greenhouse gases, ie they are the ones that store the energy until the CO2 can transfer it out of the system.
Who would have guessed.
Roger Taguchi,
Welcome. You clearly have a detailed understanding of the issues pertaining to thermal radiation in the atmosphere.
I would like to see your critique of the work of Ferenc Miskolczi (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, pp. 1–40.
In particular Miskolczi’s contention that the opacity of Earth’s semi-transparent atmosphere is a fixed constant value, and that consequently as the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide rises, the quantity of water vapour (the main condensing greenhouse gas) falls in the stratosphere.
Roger Taguchi: “5.(a) To understand the mechanism of the greenhouse effect (which is real, so the NZ theory is wrong) ….”
But, NZ do not deny the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. They deny that it can account for surface temperature.
I’ve copied below NZ’s words from https://tinyurl.com/y7bfe828
So all of below is from NZ except for my insertions in brackets, just so we can clarify what NZ are talking about. It would be interesting to see how this is refuted, but I politely request that refutations are in language that most of us can understand.
Don132
“Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible.
“Observations show that the lower troposphere emits 44% more radiation toward the surface than the total solar flux absorbed by the entire Earth-Atmosphere System [this acknowledges the radiative greenhouse effect!!]…. Radiative transfer alone cannot explain this effect given the negligible heat storage capacity of air [is heat storage capacity a key idea?], no matter how detailed the model is. Thus, empirical evidence indicates that the lower atmosphere contains more kinetic energy than provided by the Sun. Understanding the origin of this extra energy is a key to the GHE [greenhouse effect.]
“Under equal solar insolation, a higher surface pressure (due to a larger atmospheric mass) would produce a warmer troposphere, while a lower pressure would result in a cooler troposphere. At
the limit, a zero pressure (due to the complete absence of an atmosphere) would yield the planet’s gray-
body temperature. [Does anyone dispute this?]
“[T]he effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours. [but, they are NOT saying that this type of compression is what they’re talking about.] This leads to a logical question: Could air pressure be responsible for the observed thermal enhancement at the Earth surface presently known as a ‘Natural Greenhouse Effect’? [i.e., the observation of Chinook winds points to the possible significance of pressure but the mechanism need not be the same.]
“Our [dimensional] analysis of interplanetary data … found no meaningful relationships between [atmospheric thermal enhancement] and variables such as total absorbed solar radiation by planets or the amount of greenhouse gases in their atmospheres. However, we discovered that [atmospheric thermal enhancement] was strongly related to total surface pressure through a nearly perfect regression fit …. [So if the radiative greenhouse effect dominates, then where is the formula such that for each planet, the greenhouse gas content, pressure, etc., can be plugged in to find average surface temperature? NZ did not find any such relationship. Has anyone else?]
“This leads to a fundamental conclusion that the ‘Natural Greenhouse Effect’ is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) in nature.
“[Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement] should not be confused with an actual energy, however, since it only defines the relative (fractional) increase of a planet’s surface temperature above that of a SPGB [Standard Planetary Gray Body.] Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! Instead, it enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision. This relative enhancement only manifests as an actual energy in the presence of external heating. Thus, Earth and Titan have similar [thermal enhancement] values, yet their
absolute surface temperatures are very different due to vastly dissimilar solar insolation. While pressure
( P ) controls the magnitude of the enhancement factor, solar heating determines the average
atmospheric volume ( V ), and the product P×V defines the total kinetic energy and temperature of the
atmosphere. Therefore, for particular solar insolation, the N TE factor gives rise to extra kinetic energy in the lower atmosphere beyond the amount supplied by the Sun. This additional energy is responsible for keeping the Earth surface 133K warmer than it would be in the absence of atmosphere, and is the
source for the observed 44% extra down-welling LW flux in the lower troposphere [so atmospheric pressure makes radiative effects possible; i.e., would we have the same degree of radiative effects with ½ the pressure?]
“What keeps the surface of Venus so immensely hot is not a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ caused
by copious amounts of CO 2 in the atmosphere as claimed by the current theory … but the sheer magnitude of its atmospheric pressure delivering enormous kinetic energy to the ground. Hence, the atmosphere does not act as a ‘blanket’ reducing the surface infrared cooling to space as maintained by the current GH theory, but is in and of itself a source of extra energy through pressure. This makes the [greenhouse effect] a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed!
“[T]he chemical composition of an atmosphere affects average air density through the molecular mass
of air, but has no impact on the mean surface temperature.
[Implications:]
“A) Global surface temperature is independent of the down-welling LW flux known as greenhouse or
back radiation, because both quantities derive from the same pool of atmospheric kinetic energy
maintained by solar heating and air pressure. Variations in the downward LW flux (caused by an increase of tropospheric emissivity, for example) are completely counterbalanced (offset) by changes in the rate of surface convective cooling, for this is how the system conserves its internal energy.
“B) Modifying chemical composition of the atmosphere cannot alter the system’s total kinetic energy,
hence the size of [the greenhouse effect.] This is supported by [ideal gas laws] and the fact that planets of vastly different atmospheric composition follow the same [pressure relationship.] The lack of impact by the atmospheric composition on surface temperature is explained via the compensating effect of convective cooling on back-radiation discussed above [once again, back-radiation is not denied.]”
Thanks for posting that. I worked through the parameterization formulas, and it was tricky as NZ don’t use baby steps in their paper.
Sorry but I do not find WE argument convincing and I am surprised the Dr. Spencer bout it.
Two atmospheres (no greenhouse gas) having different pressures P1 and P2 will lead to two different temperatures T1 and T2 on surface. Imagine two planets of the same radius R but different densities, so one planet is heavier (stronger gravity). The heavier planet will have thicker atmosphere with higher pressure. The surface of this planet will be warmer.
If WE argument was incorrect this would be no true.
“The heavier planet will have thicker atmosphere with higher pressure. The surface of this planet will be warmer.”
Yes indeed – just not for the reason you suppose.
That’s because gravity sets the lapse rate.
If there are GHG’s in said atmosphere (there will be).
Then the effective radiative height (set as the level of the S-B equilibrium temp – here -18C) is the level at which the LR is pinned. Greater density (pressure), via it’s specific heat, ensures then that the greater LR when extended to the surface gives a higher temperature.
Anthony Banton
That is the usual description of the radiative GHE but it is flawed because non condensing radiative material in an atmosphere distorts the lapse rate one way in ascending columns of air and the opposite way in descending columns so that the thermal effect for the globe as a whole nets out to zero at the surface:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
“That is the usual description of the radiative GHE but it is flawed because non condensing radiative material in an atmosphere distorts the lapse rate one way in ascending columns of air and the opposite way in descending columns so that the thermal effect for the globe as a whole nets out to zero at the surface:”
Eh!
Stephen:
Any GHG radiates in all directions.
Therefore ~half of LWIR (heating) returns to the surface at the effective radiating level and increasingly more as you approach the surface (increasing LR).
Above that level increasing more LWIR (heating) exits to space (increasing LR)
It matters not whether those CO2 molecules are moving up or down.
Just their position matters and not a vector.
The LR forms via a “heat pump” affect of atmospheric motions and the GHE destabilises that a little more.
It DOES NOT zero out.
I do realise this has been a long-running advocacy of yours, but (no offence).
There are no Sky-Dragons and they don’t need slaying.
Sorry.
I don’t understand Anthony’s disdain for the NZ findings. The fact that they once submitted a paper using their names spelled backwards shouldn’t automatically disqualify their ideas and findings. The CAGW “theory” is so far from good science that the door should remain open for all observation-based alternative descriptions of atmospheric principles.
These alternative theories are not good talking points to ordinary people. Discussion turns quickly to “who is the expert to trust” where MSM is stronger.
Ideal peer-review is anonymous. In practice references and what you say reveals who you are.
Yes Dwieland, there is someting strange about their reaction….. Brett
Cross posting on this at WUWT.
Put the concept up that
Energy in = Energy heating up the radiative stuff + energy out.
You did state planets with an atmosphere appear to have higher surface temperatures than those without.
Yet you choose to only consider those with GHG as worthy of an explanation for this.
Why?
“Ive always had the nagging suspicion there was a simpler proof that the Zeller-Nikolov theory was wrong”
The theory basically states that there is a known correlation with the surface pressure of the gas and the temperature of the surface.
Nothing wrong with that bit of the premise per se. It is what we grew up being taught in physics and chemistry under various forms of the gas laws.
What is wrong and what you find wrong is that it appears to leave no room fir GHG effect. Which is obviously very wrong.
–
So how to marry the two concepts. One is to assert that NZ need to modify their observation to include the fact that different atmospheres will cause their calculations to be wrong without an offset for GHG.
Simple.
You may also have to adjust your view that only GHG have a back heating effect.
Conduction causes non GHG to heat up, just like IR causes CO2/H2O to heat up, just there are a lot more molecules of the non GHG available at the surface to pick up conducted heat.
True the surface gets hot first and loses most of its energy in reflected SW and emitted non absorbed IR.
A significant amount still heats the lowest layers that in turn warm the adjacent layers.
These warmer layers then,just like IR but slower, pass some conducted heat back to the earth surface.
Not detectable by hand held IR gadgets sadly.
–
The result, as you of all people must appreciate is that the effective emission surface is raised, just like for CO2 but not as far.
The actual earth surface temperature would be somewhat higher given an atmosphere is present.
This should be true for all non GHG atmospheres without reflective clouds Just like the GHG effect but a lot weaker it would reflect the energy given back to the ground by the warm surface air. The atmosphere raises the effective emission level which means that air or land below that level can be warmer than the land would be if it did not have an atmosphere [maybe].
This allows Willis to be right, You to be right NZ to be partially right and still have an atmosphere with a higher temperature than predicted and overcomes the IR argument,
In the sense that no extra IR energy is being emitted.
The energy needed to heat a gaseous atmosphere is after all less than minute in the scheme of things.
Cheers.
Measurement of the Earth Radiation Budget
at the Top of the Atmosphere—A Review
TSI measurements from space have been made since 1969. TSI measurements with good stability
have been available since 1984. They reveal a variation of the TSI in phase with the 11-year sunspot
cycle, with an amplitude of the order of 1 W/m2
. The currently-ending solar cycle 24 has a low
amplitude compared to the preceding ones.
The TIM TSI instruments have a different viewing geometry as compared to the classical TSI
instruments, which results in a lower absolute value of the measured TSI. Reconciling the classical
DIARAD/SOVIM and the new TIM/TCTE instrument, the TSI level at solar minimum is estimated
to be 1362.0 +/− 0.9 W/m2
.
The ERB measurements have sufficient stability to track the temporal variability of the EEI
driving climate change, but they can not measure its absolute value with sufficient accuracy.
Combining the ERB measurements with independent estimates of the EEI from OHC, we obtain
the most likely values of the OLR of 238.0 W/m2 and of the RSF of 101.6 W/m2—corresponding
to an albedo of 29.8%—for the period 2000–2005.
Long-term changes of the OLR measured by the ERBS WFOV instrument reveal a general
strengthening of El Nino conditions for the period 1985–1997, while the CERES measurements
reveal an opposite strengthening of La Nina conditions for the period 2000–2009. There are possible
links with surface solar irradiance brightening/dimming, temperature rise/stagnation and EEI
level. Understanding these links is of fundamental importance for understanding climate change,
and therefore deserves further study.
file:///C:/Users/321ef/Downloads/remotesensing-09-01143-v2.pdf
“The albedo of planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres is not
an independent driver of climate but an intrinsic property (a
byproduct) of the climate system itself. This does not mean that
the cloud albedo cannot be influenced by external forcing such
as solar wind or galactic cosmic rays. However, the magnitude
of such influences is expected to be small due to the stabilizing
effect of negative feedbacks operating within the system. This
understanding explains the observed remarkable stability of
planetary albedos;
• The equilibrium surface temperature of a planet is bound to
remain stable (i.e. within ± 1 K) as long as the atmospheric
mass and the TOA mean solar irradiance are stationary. Hence,
Earth’s climate system is well buffered against sudden changes
and has no tipping points.”
Excuse my non-scientific approach; but couldn’t the discussion of Ned & Karl be seen as two topics, where one is a debunking of their attempt to EXPLAIN why things happen, while the other is their OBSERVATION (through their math formula being right “all” the time) of, that greenhouse gasses can’t be documentet to change that much.
Anders
Where do Ned and Karl try to explain why things happen?
That has been my input thus far.
Their work amounts to an observation that others have pointed out before in simpler terms but there are many who say (wrongly in my opinion) that those observations are not relevant or conclusive.
Robert Brown gave good explanation of how their arbitrary ‘math formula’ was able to apparently fit the data in the old post about Equation 8. Basically there were two terms involving the same variable, pressure, spliced together, one term was designed to fit the planets with a significant atmosphere (it gave a constant value of 1 for pressures less than 1kPa). Also the moon and mercury having no atmosphere were not included in the fit (the function chosen gave a value of 1 for P=0).
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb25.png
Stephen Wilde says
I note that you have not directly addressed my description of the mechanical processes involved in the mass induced greenhouse effect.
I have read all comments with great interest and admit that I am now not certain about the apparent consensus side of this discussion, I would appreciate if Willis could address Stephen’s Mechanical process directly.
Gary,
Indeed, I don’t think Stephen Wilde explains things as clearly as he could considering that his ideas turn conventional thinking upside down. One has to work to unpack what he says.
But I also think that the other side isn’t working very hard too understand the views of NZ and Wilde: witness the widespread assumption that they’ve been talking about compressive heating, as happens when a bicycle tire is blow up. Instead of that, they should have been thinking of pressure and density and what determines the temperature of a gas, which is not just the kinetic energy of the molecules but the density as well.
Don132
Don,
Being contrary to conventional thinking makes it very difficult to achieve clarity because every reader seems to find a different meaning in the words and/or has different preconceptions to overcome.
I think I am now making it very simple but it still needs an open mind.
Furthermore, N &Z only have the observation right, they have no idea of the mechanics of the process. I noted in one place that they speculated about somehow amplifying solar input which I find bizarre.
All that is needed is for convective overturning to recycle previously received solar input so as to delay exit and thereby heat the surface above S-B. The cooling efficiency of the cold side is reduced and advection to the warm side makes that warmer too as I am trying to explain to Willis.
That is all there is to it.
If we gave the Moon a Nitrogen atmosphere, would that become an additional thermal reservoir capable of maintaining a higher nighttime Lunar surface temperature than by the heat capacity of the regolith alone?
Ulric
The night and day surfaces would both be warmer because convective overturning would be inevitable so that the stored energy taken up during the creation of the Nitrogen atmosphere would be constantly recycled back to the surface in descending Nitrogen as KE (heat) from PE (not heat) aloft and constantly refreshed by new conduction into ascending Nitrogen on the sunlit side in a never ending cycle of decompression and compression.
However the Moon’s gravity is so weak that the upward pressure gradient force from kinetic energy at the surface would always exceed the downward force of gravity so the atmosphere could not reach hydrostatic equilibrium and would be rapidly lost to space.
Heat from an initial compression would not be trapped in the system. Given a larger Moon then with sufficient gravity to not lose the Nitrogen, the sunlit side shouldn’t be any warmer because there is nothing inhibiting the radiative losses. For comparison the heat capacity of the Lunar regolith doesn’t allow the sunlit side to be 90K warmer than equilibrium with solar irradiance, it only allows the dark side to be warmer.
Ulric,
It is heat from an initial DECOMPRESSION that gets trapped in the system as potential energy. The formation of an atmosphere involves raising it off the ground which is decompression.
The energy store thus created is then recycled up and down indefinitely leaving the entire Moon warmer than S-B predicts.
If we added it as a gas the gravity would compress it. Though this is all irrelevant to my original question about thermal reservoirs.
The moon is a bit tricky because it’s rotation is so slow, its day is 28 earth days! That gives a long time for cooling on the dark side. Basically though having an atmosphere would cool the hot spots and warm the cold parts. Because of Holder’s inequality the average of (T^4)^0.25 will be constant.
I don’t see why a pure Nitrogen atmosphere would cool the sunlit side.
Conduction and convection heat transfer from the sunlit side to the dark side.
The sub-surface conducts some heat away from the surface, that doesn’t make the sunlit side surface cooler than equilibrium with solar irradiance through.
I suggest you look at the plot of the Moon’s surface temperature.
“An asymmetry is observed between morning and afternoon daytime temperatures. This is observed as an offset in temperatures between morning and afternoon temperatures with equivalent solar incidence angles (Fig. 6a). This asymmetry increases with increasing incidence angle. For example equatorial temperatures at hour 6 (dawn terminator) is ∼133 K and hour 18 (dusk terminator) is ∼163 K, a difference of ∼30 K. Temperatures at hours 7 and 17 are ∼263 K and ∼267 K respectively, a difference of ∼4 K and temperatures at hours 8 and 16 are ∼317 K and ∼318 K.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869
That thermal lag is due to the night side cooling. It’s a relatively small amount of energy out in the wings, and roughly cancels out.
The entire potential energy content of an atmosphere is not a relatively small amount out in the wings.
Although conduction from surface to atmosphere is the catch all term it actually includes any process that injects potential energy into an atmosphere. That also encompasses the entire hydrological cycle and transpiration from the entire biosphere as well as direct transfer from sun heated surfaces.
It is huge and well capable of raising the global temperature by 33k when it returns as KE in descending air.
So, having followed this argument my pragmatic mind says that in order to convect in any way an atmosphere (ie gas) must be able to absorb energy (heat) if it cannot this assumes that the relevant wavelengths of radiation pass straight through and cause no movement whatsoever. As soon as the atmosphere is able to absorb the heat then convection and circulation will begin with heat being released as the pressure deceases and absorbed as it increases (with height). The pressure itself is just indicative of the weight of gas present – greater pressure means greater weight of atmosphere. Where the atmosphere is greater and absorbs heat then the effect will be greater, thats just common sense surely? If there is no movement then the pressure is irrelevant to the heat balance as the pressure only become capable of releasing energy when the pressure dynamically changes, statically there is no pressure induced energy movement.
So surely this argument as far as energy is concerned is entirely dependant on whether the gasses present can absorb heat or not. If they can then there will be a gradient of which wavelengths are absorbed and which ones are not, which to my mind at least, then sets up a greenhouse effect.
I do not understand where this ‘energy’ from pressure alone comes from. It has to be created first and then released for energy to be released. The energy in pressure comes from the creation of the atmosphere and is then latent until either added to by another source or released due to a reduction in pressure.
As for gravity providing the energy source in hydroelectricity, I think you will find thats the sun and heat again, as it is this that lifts the water and then releases it at height to provide the falling kinetic energy – the gravity provides the force of attraction to give it direction, same as a magnet.
Mark
Non radiative gases absorb heat by conduction from the solar irradiated surface.
That is sufficient to start convective overturning which leads to the mass induced greenhouse effect in the way that I have described.
Stephen:
But you miss the other side of the coin.
If the planet rotates.
Then the copiously radiating (to space) surface also COOLS the surface air by conduction.
You don’t get one without the other.
Therefore the 2 will cancel out, and end up with little if any convection by the time that surface cooled surface layer has warmed out … before cooling again as the sun goes down once more.
IOW: the heat stored by day exits by night.
Think in the round eh?
Mark
You are referring to local diurnal situations. You have to take the flobe as a whole.
The surface radiates to space at 255k throughout but the additional 33k runs through a closed adiabatic loop indefinitely in order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.
GLOBAL convection can never die down as long as there are density variations in the horizontal plane and a decline in temperature with height.
Mark,
Pressure does not create energy, and it does not act alone.
Pressure makes the atmosphere dense, and a denser atmosphere can hold more energy in the form of the translational kinetic energy of molecules that conduct and convect with the surface.
Tremendous energy is absorbed through conduction with the daytime surface, and this energy convects upwards and spreads throughout the atmosphere.
What would happen if our surface pressure falls by 1/2? It’s impossible that our temperature would remain the same, all else equal.
Pressure makes for density, and density serves as a reservoir for energy. With the sun, the oceans, and atmospheric density, there’s no need to invoke the radiative greenhouse effect. Radiative effects are real but secondary to pressure effects.
If you get this, then that’s about all there is to the NZ theory. They discount radiative effects; they don’t deny them.
They could be wrong. So far, I think they’re right. No one has changed my mind. No one who upholds the radiative greenhouse theory has explained what pressure is doing at the surface except sitting there waiting to participate in the lapse rate, which I don’t think is a very reasonable answer. To them, so far as I can tell, pressure is doing nothing, even though surface pressure can crush a railroad tanker with a partial vacuum inside. Pressure is making the surface atmosphere very dense, and that means something.
Don132
thanks for the replies. Its a case of getting my head around this conduction followed by convection, its where I have a problem. I do understand what you are saying but how does the atmosphere then lose heat to space if it doesnt radiate, to my mind this would be an insulating process where the atmosphere is unable to shed the heat therefore making the surface even hotter. Is that what is being said about the Venus atmosphere, if so how does the system then reach equilibrium. If the atmosphere is conducting from the planet body but then cant conduct the heat out at the top of the atmosphere, wouldnt this just lead to the atmosphere getting hotter and hotter
IR emission to outer space from both the surface and the atmosphere is the ONLY way the planet loses energy gained from the Sun. Everything else is internal energy loops.
Mark,
In the case of Willis’ imaginary planet, there is no way for the atmosphere to lose heat because there’s no nighttime and no poles: the planet is constantly and evenly heated by multiple suns.
In the case of earth, supposing that there were no oceans and no GHGs the atmosphere would still cool because there would be molecules that conduct with the polar areas and with the nighttime areas and there would therefore be cooler molecules higher in the atmosphere, as well as in the polar and nighttime areas. So we would be thinking something along the lines of what Ferdberple said earlier, comparing the mechanism to a sterling engine. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2574838
Not exactly like that maybe, but that’s thinking along the right lines.
If the atmosphere is very thin, like Mars, then it can’t hold much heat even as it goes through heating/cooling. If it’s thick, like Venus, then it can. If it’s in the middle, like earth, the we get what we get, adding an ocean and water vapor in the mix, with radiative effects that however do not overpower the basic foundation laid by overall atmospheric density, which according to NZ and Wilde is the key factor.
Don132
I certainly have sympathy for Anthony Watts’ policy of not normally publishing Nikolov & Zeller’s ideas; in my view those authors are clearly wrong if they think a purely transparent atmosphere could be responsible for the surface temperatures more popularly attributed to the greenhouse effect. And the head post’s being assaulted by a barrage of arguments bereft of logic and relevant physics seems to bear out his contention that publicizing such views can lead to what he regards as “a shouting match.”
But we should note that this policy seems to stem from a mindset the same as the one that apparently motivates the censorship practiced by, e.g., Twitter.
If memory serves, Mr. Watts had begun his policy against Nikolov & Zeller before those authors resorted to pseudonyms, and I’ve seen little evidence that Mr. Watts has shied away from head posts that were bound to provoke “shouting matches” at least as spirited. So those reasons for the policy appear to be mere makeweights alongside his first one: that in his view the authors’ ideas are “just wrong.” The problem with this rationale is that I’m pretty sure in his mind it’s why he spiked numerous proposed head posts that in fact were not “just wrong.”
Yes, the spiked posts I have in mind particularly are my own submissions critical of the Christopher Monckton theories that Mr. Watts publicized last year. Like the Nikolov & Zeller theory, Lord Monckton’s views about the alleged “elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare” were well and truly debunked by Roy Spencer. And in Lord Monckton’s case Steve McIntyre had additionally warned against thinking in over-simplistic terms. Yet Mr. Watts publicized Lord Monckton’s theory in seven head posts but spiked my proposed head posts that explained how elementary extrapolation and feedback-theory errors afflicted Lord Monckton’s argument. Mr. Watts no doubt thought that, like Nikolov & Zeller, I was “just wrong.”
By spiking my “just wrong” submissions Mr. Watts may have wanted to avoid leading site visitors into error. But Twitter’s, YouTube’s, and Facebook’s motivations may be similarly laudable. Unfortunately, those social-media giants aren’t qualified to determine what’s “just wrong” in, say, statements about climate science. As a consequence, they’re causing millions to form false—and damaging—impressions.
It’s no criticism of Mr. Watts and his colleagues that they suffer from similar limitations; all of us do. But in deciding what’s “just wrong” they’re creating false impressions just as the big social-media sites are. For example, publication of Lord Monckton’s errors on this site seems to have attracted them legions of votaries.
I join in Philip Schaeffer’s above-expressed hope for further posts of the more-scientific type “and less politics and ideology.” But perhaps in emphasizing more actual science it wouldn’t hurt for Mr. Watts and his colleagues to exercise a little humility about how well they can determine what is and is not “just wrong.”
I wish I could express myself with the clarity and calmness you have managed. I’m no expert in these matters. I mostly work as a technician in radio studios these days. Unfortunately what could be reasoned debate amongst skeptics ends up being trench warfare over various misunderstood chunks of turf.
Good point Joe.
Yes, Monckton, or as I call him the “Great snake-oil seller” a man with a silver, and when challenged to firmly, an unpleasant tongue, is revered here.
He who has been able to reveal a “Startling error of physics” by dint of having degrees in the Classics and journalism.
Just as the “compressional” heat bollocks believed by some on here – the glaring logical fallacy is missed – we have the concept of a temperature having a feedback.
Eh?
Yes indeed.
No … a CHANGE in temperature may have a feedback associated with it but not otherwise.
Why is that not obvious?
As I said the great snake-oil seller.
https://www.google.com/search?q=material+compression+heat+coefficients&oq=material+compression+heat+coefficient&aqs=chrome.
Willis ich verstehe nicht warum du immer wieder mit diesen Verschwörungstheorien an tanzt. Selbverständlich ist Kompression mit Erwärmung verbunden. Auch bei Gasen.
Egal – der Planet wird auch deine Spinnereien überleben.
Willis, I do not understand why you’re always dancing with these conspiracy theories. Needless to say, compression is associated with warming of materials. Be it solid, fluid, gases, plasma.
Anyway – the planet will survive your spins too.
Temperature anomalies in the US on 02.01.2019.
Why is the average surface temperature stable? Because the TSI and atmosphere mass is stable.
Zeller and Nikolov DO NOT say that heat due to compression is what is responsible for warmer surface temperature. Gas can store more energy as it is compressed. The atmosphere at the surface (about 14.7 psi) can store more energy than at 10 psi, but the pressure itself isn’t really the important dimension~ density is. Molecules per unit volume. The energy still comes from the sun, just as it does in the ‘greenhouse effect’, so the ‘proof’ doesn’t apply.
The atmosphere is a solar battery that both raises the average temperature and chops off the high and low extremes like a band pass filter.
Judging by the range of answers on this thread the only sound conclusion is AGW theory is a LONG way from being settled.
Although I’m just a layman I’ll say I’m surprised at the number of people misinterpreting the NZ basics.
Atmospheric pressure AND solar insolation. That’s it. (All from official data too)
Given NZ claim theirs is a discovery NOT a theory has anyone tried to replicate the maths? If they’re correct their figures should be replicable for any capable person crunching the numbers. Surely that would be a step in the right direction towards verifying (or otherwise) their central claims?
Let me try again. Non-rotating featureless blackbody planet evenly heated with no atmosphere. Average input = 340W/m2, same as Earth. Surface temperature per Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B), 278K.
We add an inert gas atmosphere sufficient to give surface pressure the same as on earth. Per Nikolov, the temperature goes up to 288K and stays there indefinitely.
At this point, per S-B the surface is radiating at 388 W/m2.
The surface is now receiving 340 W/m2 constantly, and is radiating 388 W/m2 constantly … so …
… where is the extra 48 W/m2 coming from?
Me, I say this is physically impossible. Remember that the only energy source is the incoming 340 W/m2.
Note that a constant ongoing flux of 48 W/m2 cannot be from say extra energy that theoretically was originally required to “lift the atmosphere off the planet”. That is not an energy SOURCE.
Please answer the question as posed. I’m tired of folks saying things on the order of “But if conditions were different the answer would be different”. No duh.
So please, take the thought experiment as given and answer the question—where is the 48 W/m2 extra energy coming from?
w.
Willis
If you ever get around to reading my description you will see that it comes from KE recovered from PE within descending columns of air which constitute half the bulk atmosphere at any given moment.
Do you not realise that you need my mechanism to explain your own thermostat hypothesis ?
Willis,
Nice restatement. You’re right, your question has to have an answer if NZ are correct.
Don132
Don,
That question has always been at the forefront of most minds because if one is not satisfied by the radiative theory one has to have an alternative means of getting additional KE back to the surface.
The reason the radiative theory was not satisfying for me was the problem of avoiding the destruction of hydrostsic equilibrium if uncorrected radiative imbalances were present. It has long been known that convective adjustments neutralise such radiative imbalances so as to preserve hydrostatic equilibrium so there was clearly something wrong with the radiative theory.
The necessary additional KE at the surface is achieved by descending air converting PE to KE during descent which serves to reduce the rate of surface cooling beneath regions of such descending air.
Reducing the rate of surface cooling beneath descending air raises surface temperature and then the effect spreads across to the illuminated side as well via advection at the surface so the whole globe ends up warmer than S-B
Stephen,
I’m still thinking. I suspect that you’re saying much more there than you’re given credit for. But, I’m still thinking.
In essence the problem is one of getting kinetic energy back to surface, such as what the theory of greenhouse warming proposes? I hadn’t paid a lot of attention to PE-KE.
But, in Willis’ planet, there is no opportunity for surface cooling.
Don132
Surely you cannot get more energy from a system than you put in. Ascending air or descending air has to have an energy input – in this case heat – in order to have kinetic energy so that energy would have to be from the original solar energy. Stephen your ascending/descending air doesnt make any sense to my fairly basic physics understanding
Mark
Ascent and descent does indeed require heat to sustain it – at the surface.
That is my point.
Whilst the atmosphere is being formed the necessary energy to suspend atmospheric mass off the ground is deducted from incoming solar energy that would otherwise have radiated to space. Conduction draws energy from the surface to reduce radiation to space temporarily until the atmosphere is in place. The surface temperature doesn’t drop during the process but the amount of radiation reaching space does drop during the formation.
Once the atmosphere is in place it must convect for reasons I have explained to Willis so we then have solar energy in and out at 255k, conduction and convection up and down at 33k and a surface temperature of 288k indefinitely.
I first described that discrete persistent adiabatic energy loop in an article from about 2010
Thank you for your reply Stephen. I understand where you are coming from, so I now have a better understanding of both arguments. The resolution of each seems to be somewhat circular! The mathematics and specific physical properties are presently beyond my knowledge so I will continue to rely on others. I like simplicity and is more often than not closer to the answer than complexity. On this one I really dont know, but I love the simplicity of WEs tropical storm thermostat.
I like to keep an open mind – always lurking and trying to learn!
Here’s what I come up with.
Use a version of the ideal gas law, T = PM/Rρ , where
T= near-surface atmospheric temp 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)
Plugging in the numbers for earth, we get 288.6K. Now, the argument is, on earth we get 288.6 because of the greenhouse effect, and without the added surface heat from GHGs the terms are changed.
What puzzled me was this: It would seem that the near-surface temperature of Willis’ planet can only get to 278K, since the atmosphere conducts with the surface and the surface is only 278K. But, and here’s the kicker, if this is true, then it would also be true that at twice the pressure, the temperature would be the same 278K. But this makes no sense. If we plug the numbers into the ideal gas law then we see that the temperature cannot remain the same. Is the ideal gas law wrong?
Willis’ planet is a special case because there’s no way for the atmosphere to cool, as it’s surrounded on all sides by suns: equally and constantly heated.
So I’m thinking this through half-assed and roundabout but it leads me to a conclusion which I’ve stated before: the planet is not receiving energy just on the mass of the surface, but on the mass of the atmosphere as well. Otherwise, how can we explain that by doubling the surface pressure we necessarily increase the temperature, according to the ideal gas law? If the atmosphere has almost no mass, on the other hand, then yes, it will still conduct with a surface at 278K and the molecules will acquire the appropriate translational kinetic energy, but the temperature of a gas is not the translational kinetic energy of the molecules: it is the AVERAGE translational kinetic energy of the molecules per unit volume, which is greater in a denser gas. A thinner atmosphere, I predict, would be less than 278K if we understand that we’re talking about the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules; at some point of atmospheric density, the atmospheric temperature would equal the temperature of the surface, and at some point of atmospheric density the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface and begin heating the surface.
Another thought experiment. Let’s say we have a planet similar to Willis’ except that the atmosphere is only one km thick and has 100x the atmospheric pressure of earth. How much of that planet is receiving 340 W/m2? Just the surface? Or is the incredible mass of the atmosphere also receiving part of that 340 W/m2? Not directly, because the atmosphere is transparent to solar energy, but indirectly through extremely intense conduction with the surface. Are we defining what receives the 340 W/m2 too narrowly?
That’s as far as I’ve gotten.
Don132
Otherwise, how can we explain that by doubling the surface pressure we necessarily increase the temperature, according to the ideal gas law?
You’re misapplying the gas law, you are assuming that the atmospheric volume is constant which is not true. With a transparent atmosphere the surface temperature will be determined by radiation transfer so a correct application of the gas law is T constant, P doubled therefore the volume has doubled.
Phil,
No!
I’m allowed a thought experiment, just as Willis is, and I say the pressure has doubled but the volume stays the same. I can do that and it violates no law.
We can have thin atmospheres (low pressure) and thick atmospheres (high pressure.) It happens all over the solar system.
Don132
“So I’m thinking this through half-assed and roundabout but it leads me to a conclusion which I’ve stated before: the planet is not receiving energy just on the mass of the surface, but on the mass of the atmosphere as well. Otherwise, how can we explain that by doubling the surface pressure we necessarily increase the temperature, according to the ideal gas law?”
I’m still waiting patiently for an answer from those who seem to suppose that the only thing pressure does is hang around and make equations of state work out.
The atmosphere retains heat on its own, without the aid of GHGs, by virtue of its mass and density, derived in large part from gravity. Willis’ hypothetical planet supposes this cannot be true, since his model assumes that the atmosphere doesn’t receive energy and that NZ say that pressure/gravity/unicorns magically create energy (NZ do NOT say that!) The atmosphere doesn’t create energy: it retains energy.
Impossible, you say? Isn’t that exactly what we suppose is happening with the radiative greenhouse effect?
Not responding is not a refutation. We’re down to some very basic ideas and the core of the issue; maybe that’s why there are no takers so far. In fact we’re very close, I think, to resolving a major misunderstanding of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory (have to acknowledge Robert, too!)
Congratulations to everyone for making this a fairly civil discourse so far! I hope we can maintain this.
Don132
Willis has gone off in a huff so I assume he has nothing further to contribute.
Nope, no huff. I just got tired of you claiming that atmospheric circulation creates 100+ W/m2 of continuous energy entering the system, without any explanation of the SOURCE of this putative energy. Nuclear? Fusion? Unicorn farts?
What is the SOURCE, not the process but the SOURCE, of this claimed energy? It can’t be the sun, we already know that it’s only 240 W/m2.
In your thought experiment, we know the system as a whole is receiving 240 W/m2, and that it is radiating 390 W/m2 to space.
Where is that additional energy coming from?
w.
It doesn’t radiate to space at 390 Wm2 as I have explained to you repeatedly. That is true both in the real world and my model. Your model is inapplicable due to multiple suns and a featureless surface.
Many others now get it so you are out on a very shaky limb.
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 12:10 am
In YOUR model, you claim that the atmosphere is transparent and the surface is at ~ 288K. A surface at 288K radiates about 390 W/m2. The atmosphere is transparent. What is keeping that 390 W/m2 from making it to space???
As to “many others now get it”, as Lincoln observed, “you can fool some of the people all of the time” … fortunately, science is not decided by vote.
w.
Conduction / convection up and down.
You chose a featureless surface and multiple suns to ensure perfectly even surface heating so that there can be no density variations in the horizontal plane.
In that situation convection is eliminated and you can have your isothermal atmosphere which would then require DWIR to heat the surface above S-B.
That is a completely impossible scenario as you must have known so I am forced to suspect that you constructed it in order to obscure the truth whilst actually being aware of the truth yourself.
You then relied on Robert Brown’s similar attempt to obscure the truth whereby he used a vertical column with sides that prevented three dimensional expansion with height which was a different attempt to eliminate true convective overturning so as to obscure the truth.
At his level of eminence I have difficulty believing that he did not know what he was doing.
So don’t you try to project your attempts at fooling people on to me and don’t accuse those who see my point of being fools.
Willis: “Where is that additional energy coming from?”
Well, Willis could start by answering the dilemma I posed, which is how is it possible for the atmosphere of his hypothetical planet to remain at 278K at pressure of 1/2 earth’s atmosphere and then at 100x earth’s atmosphere, maintaining same volume? Plug in the ideal gas law and you see it’s not possible: the temperature must change. Therefore, pressure is doing something. It is making the atmosphere more dense or less dense and affecting the number of molecules per cubic meter. This should be obvious. We should by now be well past the confusion over the “temperature” of a molecule, which is its translational energy ( its “speed”) and the temperature of a gas, which is the average translational energy per unit volume: more molecules, all else equal, means higher gas temperature, by definition. Is this confusion the basis of the misunderstanding?
Stephen: “Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction.” This should be clear and not controversial, unless we want to deny that an atmosphere without greenhouse gases can absorb energy. There is no energy created; energy is absorbed from the surface. Or, are we now denying that an atmosphere can absorb energy? And hold it for a period, without benefit of greenhouse gases? In fact we know that in Willis’ hypothetical planet there is no way for the atmosphere to cool, as it is constantly heated on all sides and can’t radiate.
Stephen: “Once the atmosphere is in place it must convect for reasons I have explained … so we then have solar energy in and out at 255k, conduction and convection up and down at 33k and a surface temperature of 288k indefinitely.”
The 33K is taken from surface conduction: the atmosphere absorbs energy.
Increase pressure, you increase the number of molecules per square meter: the temperature must rise, by definition. Hence, the gas laws.
It’s all very simple and elegant.
Or, why not?
Don132
Don
This is a long thread and although you have made many comments, I don’t know if you have linked this comment of yours to the post by Robert Holmes?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2575394
“I don’t know if you have linked this comment of yours to the post by Robert Holmes?”
A lot is taken directly from Holmes, “Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change.”
But, I’m thinking things through and trying to answer objections. The other side is ignoring some major objections, in my view.
Don132
To make things easy for Willis here it is again:
i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.
Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.
On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.
After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.
At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.
During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.
Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.
ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.
On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.
On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.
One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.
That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.
That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.
The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.
ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K
Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.
Stephen, thanks for the change in the experiment. As far as I can understand it, it’s just like mine, non-rotating featureless blackbody planet, non-absorbing atmosphere, except it is only heated from one side. Global average insolation is 240 W/m2. If it were evenly spread out, per S-B the surface temperature would average 255K. Remember that number, 255K. It’s the maximum possible for the temperature without an atmosphere.
However, all the illumination is on one side. So one side is getting 480 W/m2, and the other side is getting zero. The global average, of course, is still 240 W/m2. With no atmosphere, the hot side would be at 303K, the cold side would be at 0K, and on average the planet would be at 151.5K, about 100K cooler than if it were evenly heated.
So … let’s add an atmosphere. Because of the temperature differential, the atmosphere starts circulating, moving energy from the warm side to the cool side. As you might imagine, this warms the cool side, and at the same time it cools the warm side. Can’t get something for nothing.
Of course as the warm side cools and the cool side warms, the circulation slows. At some unknown point it will stabilize. Let’s assume that this happens when half of the excess energy is being constantly removed from the warm side and transferred to the cool side.
At that point the warm side is getting 360 W/m2 and the cool side is getting 120 W/m2. Note that because we’re not adding any energy there, the global average is still 240 W/m2. All that the atmosphere can do is redistribute existing energy—it is NOT an energy source.
Again per S-B, this puts the warm side temperature at 282K and the cool side temperature is 214K, for an average temperature of 248K … still cooler than the 255K it would be if it were evenly heated.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why you think the system will end up at 288K, which is 33K warmer than the 255K with even heating.
Finally, we still have the original objection. The surface in your thought experiment is absorbing 240 W/m2. IF, as you claim, the atmosphere warms it up to 288K, then the surface perforce will be radiating 390 W/m2 … so the entire system is RADIATING MORE THAN IT IS ABSORBING. Somehow, according to you, the entire system has become a SOURCE of 100 W/m2 of energy …
And that’s why I say it’s impossible. That violates the law of conservation of energy.
Best of the New Years to you,
w.
“With no atmosphere, the hot side would be at 303K, the cold side would be at 0K, and on average the planet would be at 151.5K, about 100K cooler than if it were evenly heated. ”
The hot side would be at 331.3K, and the uniformly heated body would be at 278.6K.
The 303K and 245.8K figures are with 0.3 albedo.
typo.. 254.8K
With no atmosphere, the hot side is receiving 480 W/m2. Per S-B, the temperature is
=
=
303K
w.
1366 W/m2 over twice the disk area because its a hemisphere is 683 W /m^2. In this case there is no 0.3 albedo to reduce it down to 480 or 478 W/m2.
Ulric, to compare the situation to Stephen Wilde’s experiment I used 240 W/m2 as the global 24/7 average. This is the amount of energy that hits earth after surface reflections. I think I clearly specified that in what I wrote … yes, here’s what I said in my comment just above here:
w.
You clearly specified ‘with no atmosphere’. With no atmosphere there is clearly no 0.3 albedo.
Ulric Lyons January 2, 2019 at 6:02 pm
Ulrich, it is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT about an imaginary planet. It can have any albedo. In fact, I specified it was a blackbody, so the albedo is zero. I also specified the incoming radiation at 240 W/m2.
Google “thought experiment”, you seem totally unclear on the concept.
w.
Wilis previously wrote:
“Ulric, to compare the situation to Stephen Wilde’s experiment I used 240 W/m2 as the global 24/7 average. This is the amount of energy that hits earth after surface reflections.”
And now you say:
“In fact, I specified it was a blackbody, so the albedo is zero. I also specified the incoming radiation at 240 W/m2.”
So you have the same W/m^2 value, both with and without 0.3 albedo. Obviously with no albedo, the radiation to the surface is higher.
The sunlit side of the Moon is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance so its average surface temperature would be close to 331.3K.
Effectively 394K * (0.5^0.25) = 331.3K, rather than 394K * (0.25^0.25) = 278.6K for the uniformly heated body.
The mean of that and the average temperature of the dark side due to heat capacity of the regolith is a reasonable figure for the Lunar surface average as a whole. (331.3K + 90K) / 2 = 210.5K. The imaginary uniformly heated model yields an impossibly high surface temperature for the Moon.
Meaning that SB has been misapplied to the Earth as it is also heated on one side and not uniformly.
The moon’s Bond albedo is 0.11 so allowance should be made for that.
Take 4.75K off then.
“Remember that number, 255K. It’s the maximum possible for the temperature without an atmosphere.”
No that is after the the 0.3 albedo losses, and only for an imaginary uniformly heated body.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT! Why is this so hard to grasp. And yes, it’s only for the imaginary uniformly heated body in my thought experiment.
Sheesh …
w.
Well it’s failed experiment as there is no 0.3 albedo when there is no atmosphere.
Morning Willis.
My model does not require a featureless surface (such would be impossible) and does indeed have only a single point of illumination but those are the critical differences in causing me to arrive at a different conclusion to yours.
You, Roy Spencer and Robert Brown all appreciate the need to eliminate convection in order to arrive at an isothermal atmosphere. Without that as the end point all three of you fail.
The vertical column experiment of Robert Brown is not realistic because the sides of the column prevent expansion in all directions with height which is the critical characteristic of real atmospheres enabling ongoing convection and preventing an isothermal outcome so he is profoundly misguided as is anyone who supports his experiment as meaningful.
There are only two requirements for persistent convective overturning:
i Uneven surface heating to create density variations in the horizontal plane
ii A decline in temperature with height.
You cannot avoid i for a rough surfaced body heated from one side.
You cannot avoid ii because the decline in temperature with height is caused by gravity creating the density gradient which in turn is an inevitable consequence of the spherical geometry allowing unlimited expansion in three dimensions with height.
Thus convection cannot decline or stop since you cannot prevent the density gradient set by gravity nor the expansion allowed by geometry.
You suggest that the warm side surface gets cooler and the cold side surface gets warmer and that feature causes convection to slow down and stop. That cannot happen because the vertical temperature gradient is unaffected and it is that which allows convection.
During the first cycle of convection the warm side surface does get cooler and the cold side surface does get warmer but once the loop closes then as per my description both sides become warmed equally so at that point the horizontal temperature gradient is restored and convection cannot slow down.
Finally, your original objection.
The fact is that there is nothing in science to stop surface radiation emanating from a temperature of 288k being apportioned as to 255k to space via radiation and 33k to the mass of the atmosphere by conduction. After all, we all see that the full amount of surface radiation does not make it to space and the reason for that is the split between radiation and conduction within convective overturning. To state otherwise you need to aver that the same unit of surface energy can be in two places at once or participate in two processes at once. That would violate conservation of energy.
There is no violation of the law of conservation of energy in my proposition.
Slight correction
During the first cycle of convection the warm side does NOT get cooler than the 255k set by insolation but the amount of heat radiation escaping to space during that cycle drops to 222k.
At the same time the cold side does get warmer during the first cycle due to the accumulation of energy within the system until the loop closes and throughput to space is restored to 255k.
Stephen, in my reply to you I described a planet with the convective overturning you describe. Here’s that part:
I think that the error in your claim is that you think the atmospheric circulation from the cold side to the warm side carries energy that will further warm the warm side, viz:
However, a wind flowing from a colder area to a warmer area cannot warm the warmer area, since heat only flows from warm to cold.
Finally, you have not answered the important questions about your thought experiment, which I posed above and I repeat here:
First, what is the SOURCE of the extra ~ 100W/m2 that is keeping the planet in your thought experiment ~33°C above blackbody conditions.
Second, we still have the original objection. The surface in your thought experiment is absorbing 240 W/m2. IF, as you claim, the atmosphere warms it up to 288K, then the surface perforce will be radiating 390 W/m2 … so the entire system is RADIATING MORE THAN IT IS ABSORBING. Somehow, according to you, the entire system has become a SOURCE of 100 W/m2 of energy …
And that’s why I say it’s impossible. That violates the law of conservation of energy.
Best of the morning to you,
w.
Willis,
Your further response relies on the proposition that warm air cannot flow from the cold side to warm the warm side.
That isn’t the point.
The point is that the air flowing from the cold side is warmer than it otherwise would have been in the absence of an atmosphere due to the slowing of the rate of cold side cooling caused by the KE derived from PE in the descent.
That is then additional energy supplied to the warm side which is still receiving the full benefit of continuing insolation so the warm side gets hotter too.
It is not an energy source.
It is former solar energy being delayed in exit by a recycling process.
Nor does the 288k side radiate to space at 288k because it cannot if 33k is going straight up again in fresh conduction.
You tell me how a single unit of kinetic energy can be radiated to space whilst at the same time being passed to an atmospheric molecule via conduction. That is what your contention requires and on a previous occasion when I tried to lead you through this on a step by step basis you conceded that point but then balked at the implications and I gave up on you.
Stephen Wilde January 3, 2019 at 10:57 am
That does NOT mean that the warm side is heated. It simply means that the warm side is cooled less than it would have been.
Stephen, as the name states, all that atmospheric circulation can do is CIRCULATE the available energy. It cannot ADD to the energy flux as you incorrectly claim.
Finally, you still haven’t touched the basic question. In your thought experiment, the surface is constantly absorbing 240 W/m2 and it is constantly radiating 340 W/m2 … where is that extra energy flux coming from?
I say that can’t happen because of conservation of energy. A system constantly receiving only one source of energy at 240 W/m2 CANNOT constantly radiate 340 Wm2 back out to space, NO MATTER WHAT CIRCULATES.
w.
About 100 w/m^2 of that 340 w/m^2 is albedo reflected SWR from surface and atmosphere.
Willis,
Once the adiabatic loop closes:
i ) Ongoing convection no longer needs to draw anything from insolation because it is getting what it needs from the less cold side. Thus no longer any energy drawn from ongoing insolation and no cooling from ongoing convection. The surface will initially be at 255k as per S-B.
ii) The warm side is receiving full insolation plus less cold air than it should get from the cold side. A warm side at 255k is predicated on the air from the cold side having been fully cooled by radiation to space. If it is not fully cooled then the residual surplus from the cold side will also slow the cooling of the warm side so that it rises to 288k
Those figures are just illustrative. In reality the entire globe averages 288k but I don’t have actual figures for what the cold and warm sides would need to be at in order to achieve an average of 288k That doesn’t detract from the general principle.
That is the logical outcome of a change from the initial storage process to a circulation of the available energy after the storage process has been completed. You admit that the atmosphere can circulate available energy but you ignore the initial energy storage phase. Nothing is being added to the top of atmosphere energy flux. It is simply an internal circulation delaying energy exit to space.
As for the radiating aspect you must address the issue of a surface radiating at 288k with part of that radiation being taken up by conduction so that only 255k escapes the Earth. You can only argue against that if you think that the same unit of kinetic energy at the surface can be in two places at once or carry out two processes at once which would be a breach of conservation laws.
AGW theory ignores conduction and convection to say that the surface is warmed by downward IR
I say that conduction creates the warming effect in the way I have described and any radiative imbalances from GHGs are neutralised by convective adjustments.
Other contributors have pointed out that your thermostat hypothesis is consistent with such a scenario and you must have doubts about the radiative theory or you would not be here so I don’t understand your resistance to the concept.
Willis
Could you run through where you get 240 W/m2 in and 340 W/m2 out from ?
I’m wondering if there is a bit of cross purpose here.
Stephen,
Please focus on the necessary retention of kinetic energy by a GHG-free atmosphere, which does not add any energy to the system in the same way that the (supposed) working of the radiative greenhouse effect does not add any energy to the system.
I do not believe we need to talk about circulation at all– especially not in Willis’ hypothetical planet. All we need do is focus on atmospheric density and heat transfer, and the natural insulating capacity of an atmosphere that retains kinetic energy– it does not create kinetic energy!
I believe that is the key to cracking the nut that Willis has given us in the form of his thought experiment.
We do not need to re-hash all the complicated mechanics, but only explain the logic of the very basics.
Don132
Don,
The atmosphere absorbs energy by conduction which delays exit to space and warms the surface. No GHGs are required.
Energy is added to the system but only via the delay in release.
The problem is that the radiative theorists ignore the ability of non radiative atmospheric gases to absorb and retain energy for a period of time.
And the denser the gases the more efficient conduction becomes and the higher the temperature rises.
Stephen Wilde January 3, 2019 at 12:56 pm
Conduction is an energy source that is constantly creating ~100 W/m2? Say what? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Stephen Wilde January 3, 2019 at 1:02 pm
Sure. I got the 240W/m2 from your thought experiment. S-B temperature at 240 W/m2 = 255K. You claim a 33°C temperature increase, giving 288K. S-B radiation at 288K = 390 W/m2.
So in fact you need to explain where 150 W/m2 is coming from … I cut it down from that because the circulation would stop entirely if the day and night side temperature equalized, so the increase wouldn’t be as much.
Regardless of the amount, you still have not identified the energy SOURCE supplying that 100+ W/m2 of energy continuously. You claim that the energy source is “atmospheric circulation” … say what? Atmospheric circulation is a secret energy SOURCE supplying a hundred W/m2 on a constant basis to the climate system? How come nobody noticed?
w.
Sure conduction from surface to atmosphere can do that – why not ?
How are you quantifying the amount of conduction between surface and air ?
Note that we are talking about a vast amount of energy acquired from the surface over time and being enough to keep the entire mass of the atmosphere up against gravity.It also fuels every motion in the atmosphere so as to create the events that your thunderstorm hypothesis relies upon.
We are not talking about the piddling amounts that we see on a day to day basis.
Look up Convectively Available Potential Energy (CAPE) in a meteorology textbook. It is huge.
Then it comes back across half the planet beneath high pressure cells and reduces the rate at which the surface cools to space.
I don’t see your problem over SOURCE. The energy in question comes from the formation of the atmosphere when conduction from the surface followed by convection created a shed load of potential energy within the atmosphere.
It cannot be radiated away because it is continually replenished during every convective overturning cycle.
Is that all this boils down to ?
“The problem is that the radiative theorists ignore the ability of non radiative atmospheric gases to absorb and retain energy for a period of time.”
A problem indeed! And I daresay that denying that this happens is a contradiction of physical laws.
If an atmosphere can retain kinetic energy, and it can, then this means it’s a store of energy and can act to delay heat loss, much the same as it’s supposed that the greenhouse effect works to retain atmospheric energy.
Can both effects (pressure and radiative) be working at the same time? Does one dominate? Do we only assume that pressure is insignificant, when it fact it serves as a sort of regulator to how much kinetic energy an atmosphere can store: a denser atmosphere can necessarily store more kinetic energy.
Don132
Don,
It is well established that convective adjustments neutralise radiative imbalances in order to keep the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable; convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)”
and:
Note that the hydrostatic equation depicts the vertical balance of force for a piece of fluid at rest. The balance is between the upward pressure gradient force and downward gravitational force.
The hydrostatic equation is the vertical component of the momentum equation (Newton’s equation of motion) for the fluid parcel when the forces are in perfect balance and the net acceleration = 0.”
Readers should study that lecture since it explains the concept of hydrostatic balance within atmospheres.
It appears that those climate scientists who apply the radiative gases theory of climate change have overlooked the means by which convection neutralises radiative imbalances.
Stephen Wilde January 3, 2019 at 1:37 pm
Your claim is that conduction from the surface to the atmosphere is an energy SOURCE providing more than a hundred watts per square metre 24/7? Really?
So … why has no one ever noticed or commented on this miraculous energy source?
I give up. You are simply making things up and they make no sense. Atmospheric circulation can indeed redistribute energy. But it cannot and does not CREATE energy. That’s nonsense. Where is that energy coming from? Nuclear reactions? Unicorns?
You’ll have to go argue this with someone else. When you start in with that kind of madness, I’m outta here …
w.
Ok, suit yourself.
Willis’s sole remaining objection seems to a disbelief that KE from descending air around the globe could contribute enough energy to account for a 33k enhancement of surface temperature.
Thinking it through and considering heat hazes, heat induced mirages, visible and invisible bubbles of convection, upslope breezes flowing up sunward facing slopes, evaporation from our oceans and transpiration from our biosphere I’m pretty sure that it is sufficient.
@S.W.
Here is the basic mechanism by which greenhouse gases (GHG) cool.
Assume the Earth without GHG but otherwise same atmosphere (water, clouds, albedo, etc). Radiation from surface at 15 micron cannot be absorbed. Thus over that IR band, the surface radiates to space. Because surface is warm, IR radiation rate is high.
Now add 0.04% CO2,keeping atmosphere pressure same. That 15u IR from surface gets absorbed (over and over) in the atmosphere. Only CO2 molecules at high altitude manage to radiate 15u IR to space. But the high atmosphere is much colder than the surface. Therefore, the rate that Earth loses energy via 15u IR emission slows down. Slower heat loss produces some warming.
It’s actually rather simple. Of course there are details.
donb
Except that convective adjustments neutralise radiative imbalances so your conclusion is incorrect.
It is established science that convective adjustments can stabilise or neutralise radiative imbalances:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable; convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)”
and:
Note that the hydrostatic equation depicts the vertical balance of force for a piece of fluid at rest. The balance is between the upward pressure gradient force and downward gravitational force.
The hydrostatic equation is the vertical component of the momentum equation (Newton’s equation of motion) for the fluid parcel when the forces are in perfect balance and the net acceleration = 0.”
Readers should study that lecture since it explains the concept of hydrostatic balance within atmospheres.
It appears that those climate scientists who apply the radiative gases theory of climate change have overlooked the means by which convection neutralises radiative imbalances.
@S.W.
The whole atmosphere is in radiation inbalance, because the rate IR is emitted from a gas is proportional to T^4 and the atmosphere cools with height, up to the tropopause. So what. Earth only loses heat by IR radiation. Those IR absorptions and emissions in the lower atmosphere are only moving energy around, and do tend to lessen this radiation inbalance with height. The warming effect produced by GHG occurs because the RATE of IR emission to space from the higher, colder atmosphere (where energy is lost) is less than the RATE of IR emission from the surface.
See my similar response to M-2.
The whole atmosphere is on average in radiative balance since convective adjustments keep it all under control by varying the relationship between conduction and radiation.
The observed and measured fact of hydrostatic equilibrium means that everything is balanced overall despite a plethora of local and regional imbalances.
Stephen Wilde January 3, 2019 at 2:31 pm Edit
Stephen, I keep asking for the SOURCE of the energy. Kinetic energy is not an energy SOURCE. Energy sources are things like nuclear, chemical, fusion … but “KE” is not an energy source.
All you are doing in your thought experiment is MOVING energy from A to B. But where is the claimed new energy being generated? It can’t be from the sun. We know that the sun is providing 240 W/m2 in your thought experiment, and the surface is radiating 390 W/m2 back out to space. This means there must be an energy SOURCE somewhere continuously providing 150 W/m2 or so … but what is it?
w.
As I have told you repeatedly it is recycling of stored energy, not new energy.
Donb says, by way of explaining greenhouse effect: “Therefore, the rate that Earth loses energy via 15u IR emission slows down. Slower heat loss produces some warming. It’s actually rather simple. Of course there are details.”
But any heating of atmosphere by IR is immediately countered by convective uprising; heat does not get pushed down to surface by IR. If IR heats the layer immediately below it, that layer immediately rises.
The effects of CO2 are minor compared to radiative effects of water vapor. All this happens within a dense atmosphere that allows for the radiative mechanisms to take place; density provides the insulation effect that we attribute to radiative effects. Pressure dominates over radiative effects.
Don132
Yes,
That now includes a point I have made about convective adjustments.
The thing is that if ANY molecule finds itself at the wrong temperature for its height along the lapse rate slope then it will rise and cool or fall and warm until it is in the correct position for its temperature.
So, if a GHG absorbs IR from the surface it will be too warm for its height and will rise in order to cool. Because it will initially be an adiabatic process the rise itself doesn’t help because the surroundings cool at the same rate as the rising GHG. However there will be collisional activity with surrounding non GHGs and the interchanges of energy will in due course bring the molecule back into sync with its surroundings
The point being that collisional activity with molecules of a different temperature does in due course neutralise the imbalance caused by the GHGs radiative capability.
The best picture is of radiative and non radiative molecules conducting a merry dance up and down along the lapse rate slope until the imbalance induced by radiative GHGs dissipates.
It is convection that initiates the process of rising or falling depending on the lapse rate slope and the temperature of the molecule. Then conduction between molecules eliminates any imbalances.
@Don132 & Willis
Warming the atmosphere by changing its pressure requires new energy to be inserted into the system. That has to come from somewhere. If an atmosphere does descend (collapse) onto a planetary surface, it would warm (as occurs when gas giant planets form). That added energy derives from changes in Earth’s gravity field and centripetal forces. That can occur only once. Once the pressure change occurs, no new energy is inserted; no more warming occurs. As Willis says, that extra atmosphere energy derived from the pressure change exceeds the incoming solar energy and will be radiated away. Quickly, the system will reach a new equilibrium.
Atmospheric pressure changes produced when air warms and rises or cools and falls are tiny versions of the above. BUT, pressure changes that warm the atmosphere (very slightly and on only regional scales) are equaled by pressure changes elsewhere that cool the atmosphere. At equilibrium, IR emission to space is the way solar heating is lost. To the extent that IR radiation occurs from the colder, upper atmosphere, the IR emission RATE will be slower than from the surface and the atmosphere will warm to establish equilibrium.
Water is several times more efficient at warming than is CO2, but a lesser degree than might be assumed from its relative concentration. (Water absorption and emission does not have the band widening as e.g. 15u CO2 absorption.) Water is much harder to model because of its great variation in space and time, and in its physical state (vapor vs. condensate). Also, atmospheric water has increased much less than has CO2. Warming from water is a major part of climate feedbacks when the atmosphere warms from other causes. Water vapor abundance increases, further increasing the greenhouse warming.
donb says:
“Warming the atmosphere by changing its pressure requires new energy to be inserted into the system. That has to come from somewhere.”
If air is at 2 km and descends to 1 km, it warms and no new energy is added. There’s a very simple and logical reason why it does this.
The atmosphere absorbs heat: when energy comes in it doesn’t just heat the surface, it heats the atmosphere as well. There is no “new” energy. If the surface weren’t there, there’d be nothing to absorb any energy; likewise, if the atmosphere weren’t there there’d be nothing to absorb energy. But, it IS there, and it absorbs energy, and this violates no laws. An atmosphere with 100x earth’s pressure but same volume would absorb much more energy than an earth atmosphere would, and no laws would be violated.
It’s absurd to say that an atmosphere can’t absorb heat, and yes it acts as an insulator slowing energy loss to space, but it doesn’t alter energy in = energy out, any more than GHG insulation does.
GHG’s warm atmosphere, atmosphere in turn warms earth EXACTLY as in Willis’ thought experiment (according to the theory) therefore, according to Willis, the earth now must be radiating more than it takes in and this violates conservation of energy. What’s the difference, except that Willis declares that GHGs can warm the atmosphere and THAT’S OK but a dense atmosphere can’t be warmed by conduction with the surface?
Don132
My comment, your first two lines, refer to warming the whole atmosphere by increasing pressure. Of course local warming and cooling of bits of the atmosphere by moving down and up occur everywhere and represent local energy exchange, not new energy.
Satellite measurements show that Earth is acquiring very slightly more solar energy than it is irradiating. The difference is what is currently warming Earth.
Donb says, “Of course local warming and cooling of bits of the atmosphere by moving down and up occur everywhere and represent local energy exchange, not new energy.”
If the earth’s pressure doubles, then the temperature must go up. This is according to the gas laws. No energy is added. It must be so.
I have a very hard time understanding why this is so difficult, except that people refuse to see.
There is no compressive heating as happens with a bicycle tire. No one ever said that, except for those who were quick to decide what the theory said before understanding it.
An atmosphere must be able to absorb and hold heat; not doing so makes no sense, not to mention that it violates physical laws.
“Holding heat” happens with GHGs but somehow the logical and simple effect of the mass of the atmosphere holding heat isn’t allowed. Too busy defending our paradigms to see?
Yes, the “gravity” paradigm (maybe very poorly named or referred to) turns everything on end. But a dense atmosphere MUST absorb heat, and if so then it must serve also as an insulator, and if so then in combination with the heat capacity of the oceans the vast majority of the atmospheric insulating effect can be accounted for, with radiative effects doing their dance within the pressurized atmosphere but not running the show.
Don132
An analogy would be a water wheel with water free falling into buckets. More buckets need to fill if there is inertia acting on the wheels axle, so the wheel has excess energy above what it would require to turn it were it free-wheeling. The same amount of water would be spilling out the other side however.
The total energy in the system would be greater than the incoming and outgoing energy because the inertia of the wheel traps more buckets of water. They still empty and fill at equilibrium however.
The atmosphere adds ‘inertia’ to the system above the energy levels required by blackbody/solar equilibrium.
The only other explanation would be that the energy in the earth/atmosphere system reached equilibrium not because more energy accumulated in the system before equilibrium was reached – due the additional energy required to get the sky off the ground, but because, in the waterwheel analogy the water got heavier somehow, or were the system pressurised, then the water pressure increased. This would be like saying that the sun had to kind of push harder to crank the whole system over. This would be an absurdity. It would presuppose some kind of feedback between outgoing planetary radiation and incoming solar radiation.
Martin,
I like the analogy.
The radiation in = water in the buckets and radiation out = water leaving the buckets (both equal!) and the inertia on the axle = the atmosphere.
The axle doesn’t add energy, it absorbs energy.
The atmosphere doesn’t add energy, it absorbs energy.
If the axle has a lot of junk in in then it takes more energy to turn.
If the atmosphere has more density then it absorbs more energy.
Did I do your analogy justice?
Where I think I might depart from Stephen’s thinking is that the energy absorption by the atmosphere isn’t just a one-time event (if that’s indeed what he’s saying) but is continuous.
It seems to follow that a major error in conventional thinking is assuming that energy absorbed by the earth is confined to just the surface, and does not include the atmosphere. It must be obvious to all that even in the absence of GHGs, an atmosphere must absorb energy from a surface, otherwise we’re denying that conduction exists.
Don132
Nice to see some people getting it.
I agree that it is a continuous process but once established in a closed adiabatic loop there is a net zero energy exchange between surface and atmosphere so no further change occurs.
The only period when the stored energy in the atmosphere can build up is during the first convective overturning cycle (effectively the formation process since convection is ubiquitous).
During that first cycle the cold side gets warmed up and when the loop closes the warm side heats up too to the same degree.
Willis,
Thank you for inviting me to play. In my attempt to follow your logic I am going to use your numbers.
You have a model planet that is a “non-rotating featureless blackbody planet that is only heated from one side”.
You then say “Global average insolation is 240 W/m2. If it were evenly spread out per S-B the surface temperature would average 255K.
Why do you say that? The planet is non-rotating, so the incoming radiation can never reach the dark side. Surely you mean that it is the outgoing radiation that is spread out over the whole planet? But this cannot happen in the absence of a conducting atmosphere on a non-rotating planet.
Next you say that the incoming illumination is 480 W/m2. OK, but that means that the illuminated surface, in the absence of a conducting atmosphere will have a temperature of 303K. This is your starting temperature for the lit side and not the 255K.
The next bit I agree with. A non-rotating, no atmosphere planet will have one lit hemisphere at 303K and one unlit hemisphere at 0K. This gives a global average temperature of 151.5K.
Now add the non-greenhouse atmosphere to the non-rotating planet. This atmosphere removes 120 W/m2 from the lit hemisphere, which drops its surface temperature to 282K. The atmosphere delivers 120 W/m2 to the dark side which raises its surface temperature from 0K to 214K. So, the global average temperature now becomes 248K (I agree).
So, on the non-rotating planet, lit only on one side the non-greenhouse atmosphere has raised the global average temperature by 97K. What this model demonstrates, and what the meteorologists say, is that the presence of an atmosphere on a planet cools the sunlit side and warms the dark night-time side.
Welcome to the dark side.
Philip
Slight correction needed.
Due to the circulation an atmosphere also warms the warm side. It doesn’t cool the warm side during the formation of the atmosphere because the energy required is taken from outgoing radiation and not directly from the surface before radiation emission from the surface.
Conducting mass between a radiation source and space draws down power from the radiation flux.
Radiation is most efficient in a vacuum so it is less efficient when conducting matter is in its path.
Stephen,
I am not sure that any correction is needed. In this model world the atmosphere contains no greenhouse gases (it is totally transparent) so it can only ever gain heat on the lit side and be cooled on the dark side by contact with the solid thermally radiating surface at its base.
Let’s wait and see what Willis says, it is his model.
Due to the circulation an atmosphere also warms the warm side. It doesn’t cool the warm side during the formation of the atmosphere because the energy required is taken from outgoing radiation and not directly from the surface before radiation emission from the surface.
In conduction the energy is taken directly from the surface, if the atmosphere at the surface is the same temperature as the surface there is no conduction and the radiation loss is unchanged. If the atmosphere is warmed by conduction the surface must cool and therefore the radiation is reduced.
Conducting mass between a radiation source and space draws down power from the radiation flux.
It only does so if it reduces the temperature of the source.
Radiation is most efficient in a vacuum so it is less efficient when conducting matter is in its path.
If the gas is transparent to that radiation there is no effect.
I am open to persuasion as to whether conduction takes its energy from the surface thereby cooling it or from the radiation flux after it leaves the surface. Either way my description works.
If the process of conduction draws energy either from the surface or from the flux then that is a type of atmospheric opacity created by conduction so your transparency point is not valid.
The problem you have is that if a surface always radiates to space as per S-B then no energy is available for conduction so an atmosphere cannot form.
The only solution is that a conducting atmosphere does introduce an element of opacity to a radiative flux and so it must be.
I think that it’s time for a look at Trenberth’s model using his parameters.
In the diagram of his canonical energy budget analysis Trenberth has 168 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth’s surface and 67 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere. This gives a total planetary intercept of 235 W/m2 from the 342 W/m2 in the incoming solar beam, after accounting for bypass losses due to albedo effects. Now Trenberth’s numbers are solar beam intensity values divided by 4 to account for the surface area geometry of the intercepting planetary disk, versus the surface area of the emitting and rotating planetary globe.
So, in order to use Trenberth’s numbers for a theoretical non-rotating Earth (with or without any atmosphere), it is necessary to multiply his numbers by 2. This multiplication gives us the correct divide by two relationship for the planetary disk solar beam intercept area to lit hemisphere emitting surface area for a non-rotating planet. Why divide by two? Look at it this way, when standing on the Moon you can only ever see the Earth from half of its surface, the Moon’s near side. However, the Earth can never be seen from the far side of the Moon, so no Earthlight can ever reach the Moon’s far side, hence Earthlight is only ever spread out over half of the Moon’s surface.
Now for a non-rotating, no atmosphere Earth the solar lit hemisphere will receive 470 W/m2 which gives us a S-B temperature of 301.7K. The unlit dark side of the Earth will be at 0K so the planetary surface average temperature will be 150.9K. Now let’s add our mobile fluid non-greenhouse gas atmosphere to our non-rotating Earth. Let us assume that the lit side equilibrates to a surface temperature of 253.7K, this temperature requires an energy flux of 235 W/m2 (this is Trenberth’s illumination value). The surface heated atmosphere exports the remaining 235 W/m2 to the dark side where it raises the surface temperature from 0K up to 253.7K, which gives us a global surface temperature of 253.7K, an average global temperature increase of 102.9K.
The explanation for this rise in the average global temperature lies in the shape of the S-B equation temperature versus W/m2 curve. It requires only 5.67 W/m2 to raise a surface from 0K to 100K, however to raise a surface from 200K to 300K requires 368.6 W/m2. So, by using a mobile fluid atmosphere (of whatever type) and using it to remove only 5.67 Watts/m2 from the lit hemisphere this will drop its temperature from 301.7K to 300.7K and raise the unlit surface by thermal transport to 100K, producing a global average temperature rise in this example from 150.9K to 200.4K.
Can we all please agree that there is no trick here? This is what mobile fluid atmospheres do, they export heat from the site of illumination and transport it to the dark side. It is winter here in the north and the south wind is bringing heat up from the tropics to warm the dark of the long polar night.
So, what about atmospheric opacity? Well that’s another argument. Now we need to discuss the nature and form of the thermal reservoir that raises the surface temperature of the Earth from 235.7K to 288K as Trenberth’s diagram requires. Is this reservoir filled by a thermal effect of the total atmospheric motion and structure or is it due to a radiative opacity? One of the most interesting comments on the other thread was this one by Tim Folkerts about potential temperature.
Air in the stratosphere, though cold, cannot be returned to the surface because its potential temperature is too high. This thermal buoyancy is due to the release of latent heat in the thunderstorms of the troposphere that raised and dried the rising moist air prior to its injection into the stratosphere. If dry stratospheric air is forced down to the surface by the Coriolis effect of our rapidly rotating planet, then this adiabatically heated air will produce a thermal reservoir of warm air which will heat the surface. It is precisely this vertical atmospheric movement and adiabatic heating of dry air that occurs in the descending limbs of the tropical Hadley Cell.
The critical failure in Trenberth’s model is that he has ascending thermals transporting both sensible and also latent heat from the surface to the stratosphere, but no descending dry air, such as occurs in the Hadley Cell, to balance this cycle. It is literally impossible to move latent heat without any mass movement, it is not a radiative process. Vertical latent heat transport is a mass movement non-radiative phenomenon, so air aloft must be returned to the surface to complete the mass transport cycle as Stephen Wilde asserts.
Thanks Philip
I have previously addressed that flaw in the Trenberth diagram here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/correcting-the-kiehl-trenberth-energy-budget/
It was actually published by Anthony here back in 2014 and I put up with quite a bit of abuse.
Stephen
I think that you will like this.
I have been playing with the S-B equation kindly supplied by Willis.
Using this comment by donb below
Using this rate of planetary geothermal flux this number of W/m2 equates to a non-illumination surface temperature for the whole Earth of 36.4K.
So, the base line temperature of lonely unlit Earth is not 0K it is at least 36K due to irreducible geothermal heating of the surface.
Oh dear. Does that circa 36K number seem familiar?
Could you spell it for me please, I don’t want to jump off at a tangent.
Thanks.
Philip Mulholland:
“In the diagram of his canonical energy budget analysis Trenberth has 168 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth’s surface and 67 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere. This gives a total planetary intercept of 235 W/m2 from the 342 W/m2 in the incoming solar beam, after accounting for bypass losses due to albedo effects. ”
(In one of my comments I said that an implicit assumption of greenhouse proponents was that atmosphere doesn’t absorb energy. That was wrong; even Homer nods. But it seems that’s an implicit assumption of Willis’ hypothetical planet.)
In the radiative greenhouse model, the reason the surface temperature is higher than the BB temp is that greenhouse gases hold heat from the IR radiating earth and also radiate energy out, thus preserving conservation of energy.
But in a non-GHG atmosphere, the atmosphere absorbs the same 67 W/m2, but this time it can’t be radiated out. Therefore the W/m2 that had been radiated out by the GHG atmosphere is now returned back to the earth’s surface or else is re-circulated within the atmosphere, per Stephen’s theory, and the surface radiates at an appropriate level that includes energy received from the atmosphere. No laws have been violated. The heat gained by radiative transfer might be balanced by heat loss to space by radiation; I don’t know. The point is there’s no violation of conservation of energy.
Likewise in Willis’ model, if the atmosphere heats the surface, as he proposes and as I agree would be true, then that means that the W/m2 absorbed by the atmosphere are returned to the surface, and there’s no violation of conservation of energy.
Don132
Stephen
Everyone discards surface geothermal heat flux, because at 0.1 W/m2 it is such a small value and so can be ignored. However the form of the S-B equation with its power exponent means that it only needs 0.1 W /m2 to raise the surface temperature from 0K to 36K.
The irreducible datum temperature for the Earth is therefore 36K not 0K.
Using this temperature value as the datum in the calculation for the solar heated average planetary temperature means that the missing 33 K can now be accounted for.
Hmm
That then gives us three potential sources for that 33k namely back radiation, adiabatic heating and geothermal.
I still favour the adiabatic version.
“means that the missing 33 K can now be accounted for.”
Self correction. No it doesn’t work like that. The asymmetry in the S-B equation means that 150 W/m2 of extra energy flux is required to push the temperature up from 255K to 288K.
Back to the drawing board!
In a later post Willlis changed to 150 W/m2 to account for 33k so in theory it could be both adiabatic and geothermal at that level but then I’m not certain that Trenberth has accurate enough figures for anything to enable a decision.
His budget was illustrative rather than definitive as far as I know and it has since been adjusted.
The geothermal aspect is beyond my current knowledge.
All I’m trying to do at the moment is to get across the importance of convective overturning in getting KE back to the surface.
“The next bit I agree with. A non-rotating, no atmosphere planet will have one lit hemisphere at 303K and one unlit hemisphere at 0K.”
At 331.3K. 303K is after 30% albedo reflection, which cannot exist with no atmosphere.
394K / (2^0.25) = 331.3K
minus 30% albedo:
331.3K * (0.7^0.25) = 303K
Stephen says:
“Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.”
Well with no convection we can dismiss the rest of your narrative then, Moreover you have hijacked my model without commenting on my key point of thermal reservoirs, and created a pigs ear out of it by proposing higher altitude less dense and warmer Nitrogen sinking on the dark side. It’s totally potty.
Ulric
Convection inevitably develops as per my description so my narrative is correct.
I’ve no idea what your model is.
Every diagram of convection you will ever see shows lateral movement of air at the top followed by sinking.
Anyway, the air at the top is colder not warmer due to the lapse rate slope.
So here is what you first said:
“At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.”
Warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen descending. That’s a tall order.
“I’ve no idea what your model is.”
Yes you do, you commented on it on January 2, 2019 at 7:23 am.
My apologies, I didn’t realise that adding an atmosphere to a moon amounted to a model.
Anyway, you miss the point that the more buoyant and warmer air cools to the temperature of the colder air above as it travels up the lapse rate slope and then in turn is pushed aside by more coming up from below.
It is in all the meteorology textbooks.
Every diagram of convection you will ever see shows lateral movement of air at the top followed by sinking.
And how many of those are for an atmosphere that is transparent in the IR?
Makes no difference since the heating is from conduction at the base.
In the absence of radiative gases in the atmosphere how does that air at the top sink, how does it cool? There’s certainly no way for that to happen on Willis’s planet.
It is true that there is no way for that to happen on Willis’s planet because he has loaded the dice so as to eliminate convection with multiple suns and a featureless surface which prevents density gradients in the horizontal plane.
In the terms of his model he is correct and he can have an isothermal atmosphere.
Since he has carefully selected his parameters he must have known that he was setting out to conceal the truth because his model bears no relation to reality.
In the real world there are always density variations in the horizontal plane so that parcels of air must rise above other parcels. Rising air cools by expansion and falling air warms by contraction as per the gas laws and that cannot be prevented.
One does not need radiative gases to create a vertical decline in temperature and consequent convective overturning. Only uplift within a gravitational field plus spherical geometry are required. The geometry supplies an exponential increase in volume with height which is lacking in Robert Brown’s flawed vertical column experiment.
“After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.”
ThERE’S your flaw! Why would the nighttime Nitrogen cool and descend without being a a radiative greenhouse gas? The nighttime GROUND would radiate away heat, cooling off, but the atmosphere could cool ONLY by conduction with the ground. Your model would result in a temperature inversion, with cold ground, cool near surface air, getting warmer the higher you got in the atmosphere. That situation is going to remain stable, with warming during the day gradually increasing near ground atmospheric temperatures due to conduction with the ground, gradually reducing near ground atmospheric temperatures at night, due to conduction with the radiatively cooling ground, but temperaturs higher in the atmosphere will remain stable.
The Nitrogen that descends on the night side was previously cooled by adiabatic ascent oh the day side then flowed across to the night side at high levels.
Radiative gases are not required for adiabatic cooling.
No flaw.
That nitrogen cgas is NOT going to descend! You get a stable inversion of the atmosphere every night, no net flow to the night side. Upper atmosphere temperatures remainstable.
Only if you can prevent convective overturning. How do you achieve that ?
Ever heard of the downward leg of a Hadley cell ?
Every high pressure cell is a region of descent and they continue overnight.
There won’t BE any convective overturning. Remember, for a parcel of air to RISE,
The POTENTIAL temperature will be
T(1000/p)^(R/Cv).
Ground air CANNOT rise because, higher in the atmosphere, the Nitrogen or Argon is ALREADY at that same potential temperature OR HIGHER! Remember, UNLIKE the REAL atmosphere, your non greenhouse atmosphere will not have cooled by radiation, but will continue to have the SAME or HIGHER potential temperature as the warming ground level Nitrogen or Argon.
But my simpleton’s questions is why is the heat from the planetary volcanic processes ignored in all of this? Perhaps that is the difference, not greenhouse gases?
Simple question, why does it get hotter the deeper we go? That heat reaches the surface so even in the absence of sunlight the earth’s surface will still be warm
Good question, Dave. It’s ignored because it is so small, on the order of a tenth of a watt per square metre. In the absence of sunlight, our temperature would be down near absolute zero
Keep surfing …
w.
Earth’s internal heat derives from radioactive decay, residual from initial accretion, and from mineral phase changes. The surface rate of heat flow from the Earth’s interior is about 0.1 watt/m^2 and differs between continents and oceans. Rock is a good insulator. Solar irradiance to Earth is about 240 watts/m^2.
In the troposphere heat transport is dominated by convection not radiation. If this was not true we would not have dry and wet adiabatic temperature lapse rates. You absolutely cannot use the adiabatic lapse rate if convection is not the dominant factor. You cannot come up with a adiabatic lapse rate if radiation is the controlling factor.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, please show me I’m wrong. Derive an adiabatic lapse rate from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. I am always ready to learn.
Radiation transport becomes dominant above the tropopause, 50,000 ft at the poles. 80,000 ft at the equator. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation takes over for heat transport in the stratosphere where temperature rises with altitude, stopping convection.
What happens if the mass of the atmosphere is increased by 10x. Lets assume the Earth is a little denser and all of the added atmospheric mass occurs between the current surface and a slightly smaller diameter earth Oh.oh. The adiabatic lapse rate continues down to a lower altitude, the surface temperature goes above the boiling point of the oceans, and the Earth becomes another dry Venus. Pressure at the altitude of the current Earths surface is exactly the same. (I am assuming the 10x increase in atmospheric mass includes the boiled oceans.) The surface temperature on the smaller denser Earth is much hotter. The surface pressure is 10x higher. There is no change at the altitude of the actual Earth’s surface.
I do like passionate arguments and find they are great learning tools. I have learned the most when experiments give results opposite to my pet theory. The adiabatic lapse rate is an absolutely confirmed by experimental data and an exceedingly well confirmed theory. I think it would be a great achievement to show that an adiabatic lapse rate should be the result of Maxwell’s equations and radiation theory.
Gary:
A negative lapse rate of magnitude greater than adiabatic is known as an “unstable” lapse rate. If there is an unstable lapse rate, convection begins, creating upwelling streams of adiabatically expanding gas. This reduces the magnitude of the lapse rate back towards adiabatic.
The radiative GHE is strong enough in all planetary bodies we know about to create unstable lapse rates, at least on the daytime side. That is why we commonly see lapse rates near adiabatic.
I think you have just added a little detail to the how the adiabatic lapse rate is established and maintained. My point holds, the adiabatic lapse rate (including the wet rate when water is condensing) is the normal average that is created by the absorbed sunshine but the heat transport up to the tropopause is controlled by convection. The Standard Atmosphere used for aeronautical engineering represents the average atmosphere. The adiabatic lapse rate within the standard proves that heat transport is by convection up to the tropopause.
Mathematical arguments about radiation heat transport and energy balances must include the dominating convection or you are modelling a static atmosphere. The atmosphere is not a low density brick.
The stratosphere is not static either as their are horizontal winds, but vertical heat transport there is dominated by radiation. Greenhouse gasses play a big roll there. There is also a lot less water as it has condensed out at the very cold tropopause at -55°C. There is little water vapor in the stratosphere. IR radiation from ozone and CO2 radiate to deep space and cool the upper atmosphere. Ozone absorbs UV and heats the upper atmosphere during the day.
The major question for climate modelling is what happens to the height of the tropopause when CO2 is added. My pet model is that rising bubbles of moist air is kept a little warmer by IR absorption of CO2 that shares energy with nitrogen and oxygen by collision. Of course the opposite happens for a descending bubble of air but that air is now dryer on average as the water has condensed out into clouds. The net result is a slightly higher, colder, and dryer tropopause that reduces the water vapor in stratosphere. That would be a strong negative feedback that would result in little change in the temperature at the face height of human beings which is where we measure the Earth’s temperature. Of course to model this you have to understand clouds and then add in how changes in clouds affect the net incoming radiation that drives the convection.
Gary
“The major question for climate modelling is what happens to the height of the tropopause when CO2 is added. My pet model is that rising bubbles of moist air is kept a little warmer by IR absorption of CO2 that shares energy with nitrogen and oxygen by collision. Of course the opposite happens for a descending bubble of air but that air is now dryer on average as the water has condensed out into clouds. The net result is a slightly higher, colder, and dryer tropopause that reduces the water vapor in stratosphere. That would be a strong negative feedback that would result in little change in the temperature at the face height of human beings which is where we measure the Earth’s temperature.”
Well said, see here for an overlap with your above comment:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
especially the diagram relating to condensng GHGs such as water vapour.
To quote Roy Spencer;
“If you take a specific volume of gas and compress it, what you say is true… then temperature will rise. But for the global atmosphere, any air sinking and compressing (and warming) is exactly matched by an equal amount of rising air at the same altitude that is doing the opposite. There is no net temperature change.”
.
No, wrong.
Temperature in a gas is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas. If the average kinetic energy changes, so does the temperature. This can happen without heat input!
A temperature gradient/enhancement is set up in all convecting atmospheres (those >10kPa), including Earth’s.
This is because when a gas parcel expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops. However, when a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up.
Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
There is no ‘greenhouse effect’ on any planet because;
1) There are no ‘special’ gases which can cause it.
2) “Special’ gases are forbidden by the gas laws.
3) It is not needed anyway to explain measurements.
4) Any forcing from GHG is subjected instantaneously to a 100% negative feedback.
5) Measurements show that no anomalous warming exists on Venus or anywhere else from the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.
Read my paper and learn something;
Holmes, R. I. (2018). Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change. Earth, 7(3), 107-123.
The limit pressure for convection of 100 hPa is clearly visible in satellite measurements.
At atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere.
“Read my paper and learn something;”
No, we won’t do that.
Ta.
You submit it for proper peer-review.
Do some experiments that prove it.
Then wait for yer Nobel.
Read my paper.
.
“No, we won’t do that, Ta.”
.
Talk about a blind ignoramus!
Anthony, do you think that you already Know All That There is to Know?
HAHA what a an absolute fool!
The “blind-fool” is the person who ‘blindly’ accepts such sky-dragon slaying physics conjured up to ‘debunk’ something that is empirical science my friend.
That certain denizens here desperatly wish for it is a given.
Science has long since settled the question.
But thanks for your comcern that the world’s thinkers/researchers into the scince this last ~150 years have got it wrong and a genious who has a pet theory has slain said Sky-dragon.
Actually the atmospheric mass explanation was a given until the 1970s but no one ever found it necessary to precisely describe the mechanism which I have now described.
From the 1970s the field of climate research was invaded by astrophysicists who had studied distant bodies using radiation fluxes alone.
Sadly, they had no knowledge of meteorology and interpreted everything through a purely radiative lens.
That is when it all went wrong and I am seeking to reestablish the consensus science of the previous 100 years or so.
And it is nothing to do with the Sky Dragon theorists though they do have a point but it is not accurately expressed in my view.
“HAHA what an absolute fool!”
Calling names is a slippery slope and is irrelevant to the discussion of the mechanisms. Goes for both sides.
Thank you for true science.
The temperature in the troposphere on all planets, where the pressure is greater than 100 hPa depends on convection.
The sticking point for most people here is the issue of a 288k surface only radiating to space at 255k without downward radiation of 33k.
I have found difficulty in explaining why it is possible for conduction to draw off surface energy so that only 255k gets out to space past the mass of an atmosphere.
The fact is that a single unit of surface energy cannot be both radiated away and transferred by conduction at one and the same time otherwise there is a breach of conservation of energy. Radiation once gone is gone and cannot be conducted.
Downward radiation is not an acceptable solution within an atmosphere because uncorrected radiative imbalances destroy hydrostatic equilibrium leading to the loss of the atmosphere.
The only solution is to realise that conduction from molecule to molecule along the path of radiation does incrementally reduce the power of that flow of radiation.
The S-B equation remains valid in that the source at 288k is indeed radiating at 288k but the full amount of that radiation does not travel past conducting material along its path. That does presuppose a density of material capable of significant conduction along the entire path which is the case for an atmosphere. If there is a vacuum or very low density at any point then the conductive drawdown of energy will be compromised and the radiative flow will cross the gap unaltered which is what happens when surface radiation reaches space.
That would explain the observation that a density of not less than 0.1 bar is required to observe a significant greenhouse effect.
Once one realises that conduction by mass placed along a radiative path can draw energy away from a flow of radiation then it all falls into place.
IR thermometers are designed to ignore the interference to the radiative flow caused by conducting material which is why they can record an accurate temperature for a distant object.
Interestingly, radiative materials would increase the ability of mass to draw energy away from a radiative flow via conduction because they warm up in response to the radiation reaching them and renew the conductive connection to adjoining molecules thereby enhancing the power drawdown along the radiative path.
Such radiative material would also facilitate a continuation of the power drawdown across a vacuum or density gap because it would revive the conductive process beyond that gap.
Stephen Wilde thanks for your clear and concise description of how the atmosphere works to maintain a surface temperature higher than S-B. I sincerely appreciate your contribution to this discussion. I knew that N-Z’s formula is correct, but I had difficulty decoding exactly what mechanism would lead to that outcome. Your explanation is simple and quite brilliant. Thanks again for your contributions.
Thanks,
Please do what you can to spread the word.
Not all energy comes from the sun. “Conceptually, in the absence of an atmosphere, sunlight will heat the surface and the temperature will rise until the rate of emitted infrared radiation from the surface to outer space equals the rate of absorbed solar energy. (To be accurate, one needs to take into account the fact the planet is rotating and spherical, the rate of heat conduction into the sub-surface, and you also need to know the planet’s albedo (solar reflectivity) and infrared emissivity).” Why do scientist always leave out heat from the core of the earth? Wouldn’t there still be some heat being emitted by the earth even without the sun? We also emit energy from the stored solar energy from long ago. Isn’t that what fossil fuels are suppose to be. Why do we ignore all the heat we produce? Is the emitted infrared really equal to the energy we get from the sun? Should you change that to almost equal? Pressure obviously plays some roll because Death Valley is obviously much warmer than than Mount Whitney even though they get nearly the same amount of sunlight. Obviously, there is a greenhouse effect because on a humid day we don’t get as hot during the day or as cold at night regardless of the pressure. Whether the greenhouse effect is caused by back radiation or just the fact that water vapor holds more heat than air is beyond casual observation. Leave water vapor out of your extra warmth of the earth and add in the heat from the core as well as the heat all the life on earth is generating by activity and stored energy use. Then tell me how much heat is held in by pressure, CO2 back radiation, etc. It seems to me that more CO2 equals more life and more life equals more heat generated. If we reduce CO2 the amount of life will go down and the temperature will go down. A dead earth would be cooler regardless of pressure. I am not a scientist. You people make my head spin. I just don’t understand why so many basic sources of heat on earth are always left out of the global warming discussion. I do believe CO2 does cause some warming on a cold day in hell or Antarctica. The satellites in space taking pictures of earth make it clear that most of the infrared leaving earth is not stopped by CO2. Obviously the detectors used are not made for 15 microns as there is not much to see at -80C on earth and that wavelength would be blocked by CO2 anyway.
As Willis has explained above, the thermal power flux from the interior of the earth is less than 0.1 W/m2, so does not significantly affect the surface tempature levels when the solar power flux is thousands of times greater.
(This is not true of the gas giant planets, which still have significant power flux from the interior.)
Why are terrestrial heat sources ignored?
Because they are trivial relative to the Sun, which supplies about 240 watts/m^2
Heat from out of the Earth (from radioactivity and residual heat) is about 0.1 watt/m^2.
Volcanic heat is also tiny.
Burning fossil fuel releases small amounts of stored energy. Increased plant growth stores some. But these are also small, <1 watt/m^2.
“IR thermometer to demonstrate that the cold atmosphere can actually cause a warmer surface to become warmer still”
Gawd , if only that worked in my cold house. I have a kitchen with an aga always on, my bedroom is above. If I keep the door shut in my bedroom it gets warmer from the kitchen below. Unfortunately my kitchen does not get any warmer.
Just an observation!
Richard, imagine a planet with no atmosphere. The radiation at the surface goes straight out to space. No radiation comes from space.
Now, interpose a GHG atmosphere. Some of the outgoing radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. And some of that is radiated back to the surface
This leaves the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere, because it slows the rate at which the surface cools.
So yes, when you replace the infinite heat sink of outer space with a cold atmosphere, the surface ends up warmer.
w.
IR emitted from the surface, absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth is an energy loop that has little effect on greenhouse warming.
Warming occurs by slowing IR emission to space. The major factor is how cold is the atmosphere from where that space emission occurs? The surface is much warmer than the upper atmosphere.
“IR emitted from the surface, absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth is an energy loop that has little effect on greenhouse warming. Warming occurs by slowing IR emission to space.”
One describes the other. You cannot “slow” radiation. The surface has no idea neither does it care what is directly above it. It emits according to its temperature and emissivity. What can happen is when some of that energy comes back. Since it will be at the same EV level (wavelength) it ought to be accepted as readily as it was emitted.
Since the re-emission is in all directions, only some of the radiation returns to surface, we might suppose half of it. Since the average path length of a photon is about 10 meters at STP (I don’t remember the source and it doesn’t matter for this discussion), you can model the atmosphere as a series of layers, like an onion, with each layer sending half of what it gets back down. Needless to say this is quite a computation since the second layer sends down half of what it got, which is half of what was radiated, but of its half that it sends down which is 1/4 of the surface radiation, that only gets halfway to the surface when it is absorbed and re-emitted AGAIN such that 1/8th reaches the surface and 1/8 goes right back up to the second layer.
But most of that doesn’t actually happen since at STP, mechanical collisions deplete the energy of the excited CO2 molecule usually, but not always, before it gets a chance to de-excite and radiate. Consequently, convection not only of the surface but of air heated by the excited molecules becomes the dominant transport of energy within certain wavelengths.
Other wavelengths exist that are transparent to CO2 but absorbed and re-emitted by water and water vapor. One such is the wavelength used by remote reading infrared thermometers. They see right through CO2’s absorption band and instead see water. That’s why you can read deep space as extremely cold with one of these thermometers but the underside of a cloud is considerably warmer than deep space.
Does the cold reach in? No, cold is not a force. What happens is the lens of the thermometer is pointing at a heat sink; nothing comes back! Consequently the sensor radiates its own heat out through the lens into deep space, nothing comes back, and it gets as cold as the indicator says it is. Amazing, no? Point a parabolic reflector at the night sky in a desert and at the focus it will get VERY cold as if you could focus cold instead of heat; but what really is happening is creating a heat-free zone by allowing heat to escape to the sink and not return.
At Top of Atmosphere the molecules are far enough apart that they can radiate into space heat energy before a collision happens that transfers the energy to a non-radiating atom or molecule (but another collusion could happen eventually transferring the heat to methane or CO2 or ozone that can then radiate it).
@M-2
Considering “slowing radiation emission” as slowing the RATE of emission, Nothing you say above negates what I wrote.
The 15u band is relatively clear of absorptions by CO2. Most (far wings of the 15u band are exceptions) of those 15u absorptions and emissions in the lo-mid atmosphere simply move energy around. It is not lost from Earth. 16u emissions from high atmosphere have a slower rate than from the surface because the upper atmosphere is colder. A slower loss rate at 15u slightly warms. It could not be simpler, so don’t try to make it so.
A simpler but more complex process works for H2O absorption, because H2O abundance is so variable over space and time.
except my kitchen- oh and the desert – 100 degrees to freezing in a couple of hrs- some GHG atmos.
Many ways of looking at the problem.
“JERUSALEM – When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.
After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
The lesson?
“A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said”
I know the next day why the desert goes from freezing to 100 degrees , quickly, and it is not a GHG atmos!!
Correct.
It is nothing to do with GHGs.
But everything to do with meteorology.
You could try researching that fact.
Imagine an “atmosphere” composed of rock salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halite. Rock salt was used in Robert Wood’s experiment on back radiation because it has very low absorption of IR, but let’s say for our purposes that this is special rock salt and has zero absorption of IR. Let’s say this is one km thick and contacts the surface; there’s no other “atmosphere.”
Some of the radiation from the sun is absorbed by the rock salt, because it conducts with the surface. In fact, we can imagine that the rock salt serves as a significant store of energy.
This leaves the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere, because it slows the rate at which the surface cools.
No laws have been violated.
This is no different than having an atmosphere that absorbs energy from the surface.
Don132
Indeed-
“Sand has a low heat transfer coefficient of 0.06 watts per square meter degree Celsius. This means it can retain heat for very long periods of time and explains why the sand on the beach of a hot country remains warm hours after sunset – or desert!!
… and this rock salt is transparent to solar energy.
Don132
The best thing is to come up with some other description than greenhouse as the earths atmos is nothing like a greenhouse . This is a misrepresentation of awful dimensions.
richard
The mass induced phenomenon is just like a greenhouse.
Convection is inhibited below descending air just like a greenhouse roof prevents convection.
Transparency below descending air increases because clouds dissipate which represents the transparency of the glass.
It is the radiative theory that is nothing like a greenhouse. The proponents just hijacked a pre -existing term
A nasty term and we know the intention like acid seas! a greenhouse has one purpose – to increase temps. Our atmosphere cools as well as warms.
As I mentioned below it should be regulator gas.
“The mass induced phenomenon is just like a greenhouse”
Not in deserts- so wrong straight away.
Especially in deserts.
They are situated under high pressure cells with descending air which inhibits convection and has maximum transparency just like greenhouse glass.
and at night- from freezing to zero- so wrong straight away.
sorry, 100 degrees.
Only at the radiatively cooled surface which creates a temperature inversion. Above the inversion the air remains warmer.
You aren’t here to disrupt the flow of discussion are you ?
You aren’t here to disrupt the flow of discussion are you ?
how disgusting of you and you can see by my comments i am trying to break free of lazy thinking and terminology.
Easy, Richard. You can object to Stephen without calling him “disgusting.” That’s a very slippery slope.
“Easy, Richard. You can object to Stephen without calling him “disgusting.” That’s a very slippery slope”
I agree and regretted it instantly and wish to take it back – so apologies to Stephen.
I hope that Stephen can bring himself to re- address his comment that I am here to disrupt.
I have posted here for years without disruption but feel the need to comment on lazy term terminology like acidity of the seas.
No problem, I’ve had worse over the years.
Dear Don,
I have made an apology and hope it goes through.
Thanks so much Richard!
No need for people to get upset. It’s just paradigms.
Don132
I also wish to apologise to our host Mr Watts.
richard writes “the earths atmos is nothing like a greenhouse”
I believe the Earth and a greenhouse have much in common. For instance, both admit short wavelength visible light with very little attenuation; but long wavelength infrared is absorbed (and re-emitted) by the glass of a greenhouse, or by some atmospheric components opaque to those same wavelengths. The result of this is that the path to escape of heat into space is obstructed.
“by the glass of a greenhouse”
oh you have been fooled by an experiment- see al gore- that this website has condemned.
“oh you have been fooled by an experiment”
Maybe; but at least I conduct experiments and make decisions thereby.
For instance, I have double-pane (double-glazed) windows. It is very cold outside, as low as -20 C. When I aim a remote reading IR thermometer through the window, it reads about +20 (room temperature). It does not “see” the snow outside, it sees the glass temperature which has an emissivity near 1.
Going outside, the IR thermometer cannot “see” the heat inside the house; it can only see the temperature of the glass. At IR wavelengths, glass is opaque, black in other words; it absorbs, it does not reflect or transmit. But what absorbs also radiates. So the glass re-radiates at the same rate that it absorbs. However, absorption will take place only on the side facing a radiation source, but it emits from both surfaces. This has the effect of imposing a “resistance” to heat flow, allowing heat to accumulate inside a glass enclosure provided that a heat source exists that can heat what is inside (shortwave visible energy that passes through the glass).
These are simple physical experiments pretty much anyone can perform at low cost and which settles certain arguments once and for all.
There are similarities and differences between atmospheric GHG warming and greenhouse warming. As you say, glass resists IR passage. Thus, a greenhouse admits solar short-wave radiation into the greenhouse. There it is converted to long-wave IR and cannot easily escape through the glass. Atmospheric GHG heating is somewhat similar in that the GHG absorb IR from the surface so they cannot rapidly escape. This occurs multiple times until escape occurs from the colder upper atmosphere at a lower emission rate.
A greenhouse also warms by preventing warmer air inside to rise into the atmosphere and cool. Warm surface air in the atmosphere is permitted to rise.
Use of term greenhouse for GHG atmospheric warming may be clumsy, but what would be a better familiar term?
Greenhouse was an emotive term to fool the witless as seen in the seas becoming acidic rather than less base.
To be fair and to meet you in the middle, Willia, you can continue to use the term Greenhouse gas as long as you compare the term to a greenhouse with a sprinkler system and all windows and doors open otherwise you are being very misleading
Richard, the “greenhouse effect” was very poorly named … but so are lots of other things. At this point there’s not a damn thing that either you or I can do about it, because it has become a “term of art”. A term of art is some word or phrase that has an unusual, and generally not literal, meaning in some field of life.
For example, “set” is a term of art in mathematics. It does NOT mean what it means in common parlance. “Security interest” is a legal term that does NOT mean someone is interested in security.
Complaining that a term of art doesn’t mean what it literally says is meaningless—that’s the nature of the beast.
Nor is there any alternative term for “greenhouse effect” … so there is no “middle where we can meet.
My best to you,
w.
Just carefully distinguish between the radiative greenhouse effect and the mass induced greenhouse effect
and when you use the term “greenhouse” understand what it is you are re-enforcing !!!
a greenhouse has one use and is built to maximise this- our earth’s atmos is not.
you are pandering to fools.
Dear Willis,
“Richard, the “greenhouse effect” was very poorly named ”
On that we can agree but surely all you do is continue the meme?
I say be bold and come up with new ideas and thoughts.
Let our Israeli scientist be your inspiration.
“Nor is there any alternative term for “greenhouse effect”
very weak thinking –
See Ken Caldeira,( below) and how recent the term “acidity of the seas” was coined when we know the correct scientific term is becoming less base – if it is actually happening!
Are you happy with this term?
This website is very particular about correct science and terminology and you pander to an emotive term of greenhouse gas.
I expect better and I am not a scientist.
This might help you understand my concern for inserting the sprinkler system.
“RAILONCH Micro Irrigation Watering Kit, Automatic Garden Plant …
https://www.amazon.co.uk/…Irrigation…Greenhouse-Sprinkler/dp/B07D71BP2W
RAILONCH Micro Irrigation Watering Kit, Automatic Garden Plant Greenhouse Water Cooling System Sprinkler Nozzle
I suggest calling them regulator gasses as they cool and warm depending on the circumstances.
richard January 3, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Sorry, but that ship has sailed. See my reply above.
A google search for “GHG OR ‘greenhous gas'” brings up 39 MILLION results … you’re not going to change that.
w.
I agree but you could at least try and change the perception or you just cement a badly used term- some scientists actually try!! be bold and not weak-
Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman is someone to try and emulate.
Dear Willis,
In 2003, the term acidity of the seas was coined by Ken Caldeira. A horrible term – but so recent!
Why don’t you try something new rather than greenhouse gas. Times are changing and the climate change meme is under attack , new thinking could speed this up-
Be brave!!
In 2003, the term acidity of the seas was coined by Ken Caldeira. A horrible term – but so recent!
Really, can you provide a citation for that?
It’s well known-
“discusses the work of climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Michael Wickett, who coined the term “ocean acidification.” Caldeira is a climate modeller.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/20/the-darkening-sea
He goes onto say-
“This is often termed “ocean acidification” because it describes the
process of decreasing pH. Current projections of ocean acidification
suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the
term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in
reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the
oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)”
So he used alarmist words when he knew the correct term was “less basic” Hence my beef with the term “Greenhouse gas” which just signifies a hothouse – it’s a very lazy term.
@richard & Phil
A phase diagram of various carbon chemical phases in the ocean as a function of pH reveals a lot.
At the average ocean pH of 8.1 (it varies by 0.x) the basic OH- concentration (moles/kg) is about log -5, and the acid H+ concentration is much lower. On the pH scale they anti-correlate and are even in concentration at pH=7. If the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes to 10,000 (factor of 25 higher than now), the CO2 dissolved in the ocean would likely rise a similar amount. That would change ocean CO2 from about log -5 now to about log -3.7. At that CO2 concentration, the ocean pH would decrease to slightly below 7, where H+ exceeds OH- and the ocean would be very slightly acidic.
pH + pOH=14
so if pH is 8.1 pOH is 5.9
No he didn’t he used the correct term “acidification’ which is what happens when you add acid to a solution, i.e. add CO2. He clearly pointed out that the ocean wasn’t expected to become acidic. He used the correct scientific term which is frequently misunderstood by non chemists, chemists aren’t going to stop using the correct term.
you obviously missed this bit-
“when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in
reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the
oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic”
the term acidic is wrong – that is why the terminology is ” less base”
you obviously missed this bit-
“when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming less basic, but not acidic”
Not at all, he made a reasonable attempt to point out to the non-chemists that the use of the term ‘acidification’ did not mean that the end point was an acidic ocean. Unfortunately some, like you, can’t understand plain english.
Phil,
As the seas will never become Acidic, and he knew that, he used the term to get results and push an agenda in the same way as greenhouse gas is used.
Really nasty, abuse of language and causing a lot of damage.
Hence coining the phrase in 2003- gawd !
An obvious problem with using “less basic” in describing the oceans is that I suspect a great many people are not going to see “basic” as opposed to “acidic” but will see “basic” as opposed to “complex”. Less basic thus means more complex. Perhaps you should choose a different word.
In 2019 I want to see new original thinking regarding the term “greenhouse gas” otherwise the website is stuck in the mud.
N & Z have suggested Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which I would be content with.
Dear Stephen,
I am not sure I am happy with that. I have expressed I am not a scientist so my comments are not persuasive but that term still conjures up that everything is about warming and plays into the global warming meme and we can see the damage done by Ken Caldiera with acidity of the seas.
“Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach..”
.
For what? He did not prove anything.
These pages are a joke, and most here are even more closed-minded than the alarmists are.
What on earth would a psychiatrist know about the greenhouse effect anyway?
It’s ridiculous to even listen to his opinion.
This total tripe is apparently what has impressed Anthony Watts so much;
.
“Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up…But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone. ”
.
And yet somehow the surface CAN be warmed a lot by the so-called GHE, where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and somehow this represents no problems at all for thermodynamics!!! The emission height can change for the GHE, yet it can’t for the gravitationally-induced thermal enhancement/gradient!
It is just too funny.
And another straw man being thrown up here by Anthony relates to pressure;
Not sure exactly what NZ are saying, but my papers do not claim that warming comes from increasing pressure alone, it is more complicated than that.
Nevertheless, in all atmospheres >10kPa, the best way to see temperature is that it is a result of a constant battle between pressure and density, thus;
T=P/(R x ρ/M)
Sure, molar mass plays a part, but generally this is minimal because it usually occurs on a much longer time-scale.
If a special class of gases (the so-called GHG) did exist, they would have to anomalously affect pressure, density or both to do what they are claimed to do in our troposphere. – AND they would have to violate one of the core principles of the gas laws; i.e. that there are no ‘special’ gases.
We can relax, because there are no anomalous effects on density or pressure from any gas, and the gas laws are safe.
What is NOT safe is any longevity to the claim of a so-called “greenhouse effect” from supposed “greenhouse gases”.
“And yet somehow the surface CAN be warmed a lot by the so-called GHE, where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and somehow this represents no problems at all for thermodynamics!!! …..
It is just too funny.”
What’s funny is your total lack of physics understanding.
“where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained”
It’s not.
What is absorbed is indeed what is emitted (bar the odd watt or 2 imbalance due the GHE).
What you and many fail to comprehend is that the effect is not on an instantaneous time-line.
There is a delay in the system.
An analogy…..
A dammed lake in a river.
The flow in equals the flow out yet an excess builds up before the dam.
Why?
Because the water flow is held back a while before it can pass the dam.
It is a temporary blockage caused by the time taken for the flow in to be able to go out.
That is the case with GHGs.
@ A.B.
Your analogy is poor. The delay time in GHW is relatively small.
At the rate water runs into a lake, it may take months or years for the lake to fill.
At STP, molecular collisions occur on times of nanoseconds. Given bond relaxation times in CO2, IR emission times are a few microseconds. Hundreds of IR absorptions and emissions can occur with almost no delay. By then the energy has moved up to the IR emission height and is lost to space.
GHG warming occurs mainly because that IR emission from high atmosphere by CO2 or H2O occurs from a colder atmosphere than the surface, and the emission rate is slowed, so atmosphere must warm to regain balance.
But what is not considered is that the increase in CO2 means that the emission rate increases to space.
This has been established by satellite measurements.
So how much is gained from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere compared to how much is lost to space.
In the lower atmosphere it is obvious that moisture & cloud cover inhibits cooling at night, but also inhibits warming in the day, but remove the moisture & clouds and there is not much inhibition from CO2.
You only have to compare Tropics to Deserts to see that H2O controls the process and by comparison CO2 does very little indeed.
About 10% of the ~33 deg-C GHW is from CO2. Much of that occurs from broadening of the 15u emission, which because of lower absorption probabilities in the 15u band wings, occurs from lower, warmer atmosphere. Look at a satellite spectrum from space to see.
It is also the case with the mass induced effect but radiative imbalances destroy hydrostatic equilibrium whilst the mass induced effect creates it.
Go figure.
Robert..
Given that CO2 can both lose and gain energy due to N2 etc collisions..
Wouldn’t there be more collisions per second with increased pressure and temperature? (higher velocities, shorter travel distance)
Wouldn’t there be more infrared emissions per second coming from those CO2 molecules?
Wouldn’t this higher level of emissions from the ATE be seen as “back radiation”?
Dr Happer answers my question:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Glad to see a link to accurate answers given by someone who truly understands molecular physics and spectroscopy (Dr. William Happer of Princeton). Even gladder to see that he is a key science advisor to the President, who needs to be assured that the mainstream media and the IPCC are mostly wrong about climate change.
EdB, I didn’t realise that you are Dave Barton.
What a Gentleman Scholar Will Happer is to take the time to answer your questions.
His response, which shows that in effect the CAGW brigade have , to put it in the vernacular, got it arse about face.
The actual “Greenhouse” gases that store the energy and delay cooling are N2 & O2 and the Radiant gases are the ones that do the cooling.
This is compounded by the “free path length of an IR photon in the atmosphere which is very short somewhere around 20-40 Metres, so from where CO2 is dominant at it is around 10Km from the surface. Those photons will have a very hard time travelling that distance.
Funny.. no I am not Dave, but he did us all a favor of getting some direct answers from Dr Happer. I watched that video of Dr Happers lecture a few times and noted the quick extinguishing time. As a result I was puzzling over why more CO2 would have any measurable effect at all, given the near instant thermalization. If anything, more CO2 would make the atmosphere more uniform in temperature, and as such there should be less violent behavior, like tornadoes.
I did not relate it to ATE until this discussion.
Not entirely correct though, Will appears to misunderstand what is meant by radiative lifetime
IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH’S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.
The radiative lifetime is the ‘mean time between collisions’ not the length of time that the molecule emits for, as Will appears to think. Also only one photon will be emitted not a long chain of them as described by Will. The excitation energy removed by collisions is not removed by a single collision, rather it’s mostly chipped away a small amount at a time
But a billion collisions per photon ?
Can’t be many photons.
Depends on the altitude, near the surface the energy is mostly thermalized, up in the stratosphere it’s mostly radiated.
Yes.
“the best way to see temperature is that it is a result of a constant battle between pressure and density,”
Even better is to see it as a battle between conduction and radiation.
The lapse rate slope represents the changing balance between conduction and radiation as one descends through the mass of an atmosphere. It is a constant battle between the two processes and convection up and down along the lapse rate slope acts as a mediator with conduction between molecules above and below the slope then being the mechanism that resolves imbalances.
Convective adjustments operating via conduction within the atmosphere neutralise the effects of GHGs as fast as they arise so as to obey the Gas Laws and retain hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere as a whole.
Stephen,
Yes; you gave the long answer, I gave the short one.
I note above a link to comments made by Will Happer as follows:
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
which is new to me and pretty astonishing because it means that the 15mu energy allegedly blocked by a CO2 molecule is virtually certain to pass its warmth to adjoining non radiative molecules via conduction before it can contribute anything extra to the downward radiative flux.
That makes it far more likely that the mass induced greenhouse effect is the correct version and runs a coach and horses through the idea that DWIR from CO2 is even measurable by IR thermometers or anything else.
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
Hardly new, I’ve been posting that on here for years, it’s elementary Phys Chem and I certainly didn’t need Will to tell me about it.
It was the billion times figure that surprised me.
What are alarmists playing at ?
Stephen, I wrote:
Willis Eschenbach January 4, 2019 at 12:22 am
You replied:
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 1:44 am
Say what? We’re talking about YOUR thought experiment, not mine.
And your claim that “conduction/convection up and down” stops the 288K surface from radiating? That makes no sense. Remember, energy is neither created nor destroyed. So all that conduction/convection can do is move energy from point A to point B.
Best regards,
w.
It is you have a problem in that if the surface radiates to space at the same rate as it comes in from space and radiates to space strictly in accordance with its temperature then there is no energy left for conduction so an atmosphere could not form in the first place.
How do you deal with that ? I really want to know.
The obvious solution is that some of the radiation that would otherwise have gone to space is diverted into conduction in order for the atmosphere to form.
Since the same unit of surface energy cannot be in two places at once you cannot argue that a surface at 288k radiates to space at 288k when there is a convecting atmosphere between surface and space which requires 33k of conducted energy to maintain it.
Your proposition makes no sense.
And conduction / convection is indeed simply moving energy from point A to point B but you have to account for the creation of that energy store in the first place and you cannot.
The fact is that placing conducting mass between a radiating surface and space compromises radiation efficiency from the surface so that the amount reaching space is less than that emitted by the surface.
Conduction itself allows absorption of energy by non radiating molecules with no need for those molecules to have radiative capability themselves.
AGW theory ignores the ability of conduction to divert energy from the radiative flux (as do you).
The accuracy of the US Standard Atmosphere and the calculations of N & Z amongst others support my proposition.
I was curious to know how much the atmosphere weighed. One answer on ‘ask the experts’ gave a figure of around 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons, or 6 quadrillion tons.
Since the earth contributes nothing to this that the sun doesn’t bring into the equation this amounts to an enormous amount of solar energy required to keep that lot up in the air. This energy is locked into the earth/atmosphere system. How many days worth of solar irradiance does that amount to? The mind boggles.
Back of the envelope calculations:
Atmospheric mass = 5.148E+18 kg
Specific heat air = 1 kilojoule / kg / degreeC
To heat atmosphere by 1°C =5.148E+21 joules
Solar input after albedo reflections = 240 W/m2
Surface area of planet 5.11E+14 m2
Seconds per day = 86,400
Total solar input per day = solar input time area times secondsperday = 1.06 E+22
Taken together, this means that the sun’s heat would warm the atmosphere about 2°C per day.
w.
Seconds per day = 31,556,592
24 hours*60 minutes*60 seconds = 86400 seconds per day….
Grrr … seconds per day indeed. I used the right number in my computation, it is two degrees per day, but I wrote the wrong number in my comment. I’ve fixed my comment, many thanks.
This is the beauty of writing for the web … mistakes have a very short half-life here at WUWT.
Good to hear from you, as always,
w.
mistakes have a very short half-life here at WUWT.
Except when being peddled by quacks and pseudo ‘scientists’; then they live forever: to wit, this very post.
Luckily we know who they are.
Willis often says that when people resort to insults you know you have won 🙂
Stephen, in your case those are not insults. They are dead-on descriptions.
w.
No doubt the people you were dealing with when you felt insulted would say the same.
Your position is that if anyone insults you then they’ve lost the argument but if you insult someone it is dead accurate.
The word’ hypocrisy comes to mind’.
But let’s stop there shall we. I never get assertive until someone else gets nasty first.
I never get assertive until someone else gets nasty first.
In any case, that is still not a useful [or civil] way to conduct an argument.
That you cannot rise above that sadly tells a lot about you.
Well I have risen above it better than you and Willis. No abuse in my comments remotely similar to what you and Willis come out with. A couple of barbed remarks maybe but not the sort of thing you two generate.
In a good manners contest between the three of us I’d come out ahead.
I suggest we stop there and if you aren’t rude I’ll have no temptation to respond in kind.
I suggest we stop there
Good riddance [if you can keep that promise].
And saying that someone spouts nonsense is not an insult to a person, but a deserved debunking of his ideas [totally different thing].
I recall saying you spouted abuse but not that you spouted nonsense as far as I can remember.
You couldn’t keep your promise [as predicted].
Amnesia for the purpose of argument [or swipe] must be an occupational disease for lawyers.
Thank you Robert Holmes (and of course SW below him) for sensible understanding of how gases actually work, hence the Gas Laws. They are different from solids, even liquid solids, which is why Steel greenhouses are not appropriate any more than equation-fitting expressing non-existent conditions. Robert said there ‘are no special gases, which is what Maxwell pointed out. He wrote Thermodynamic Law down and developed experiments to demonstate them. Read pp330-350 of his ‘Theory of Heat’ for starters.
The ‘Standard Atmosphere’ depends on all this, and knows it.
Gases near STP can be pictured as c.2angstrom cubed molecules bouncing around in c.12angstrom cubed spaces. Contacting each other about a billion times a second (Brittanica 1977 Vol 7 p917), transfering energy (thermalising by KE). The Gas Laws work in non-critical pressure situations because statistically , size-differences are too small relatively to matter.
N and Z have aready used the normal route to demonstrate the ‘Atmospheric Thermal Effect’ or ATE like many others out in the real world where the gas laws rule and radiant emissions are merely an Effect of KE vibrations through a magnetic field.
The sun runs on nuclear powered KE at multimillions of degrees but has to radiate through space to us from its surface of c.7000K. It was however lit up by ATE as described by N and Z and others. The surface we see corresponds to our tropopause I surmise. A better discussion might involve how these things work in the engineering sense, and also their dimensionless approach in the paper under critical review here…… Regards all from Brett In NZ without the ‘and’. You know, the Hicks who just launched 19 cubesats for Nasa. You can be sure we can do graphs, statistics, and equations here. But we prefer to do better experiments instead. I note both Voyagers our Electrician heading JPL sent out have now pretty well left the solar system. Sometimes I dont blame them. Anywhere but California, hey?
The sun runs on nuclear powered KE at multimillions of degrees but has to radiate through space to us from its surface
It actually does not run on KE. It runs on nuclear fusion of H to He in the core. The energy from that reaction moves by radiation most of the way to the surface.
@ L.S.
High kinetic energy, produced by high temperature, is required for atomic collisions to have sufficient energy for nuclear reactions to occur.
So both kinetic energy and nuclear reactions are reason Sun emits energy.
High kinetic energy, produced by high temperature, is required for atomic collisions to have sufficient energy for nuclear reactions to occur.
The high kinetic energy is an effect of the nuclear reactions that are producing gamma rays that heat the solar matter to maintain a high temperature. Once ignited some 5 billion years ago, the nuclear fusion is self-sustaining as long as there is enough fuel left.
@ L.S.
Only partially so. A star collapses under its gravitation and heats until nuclear reactions can begin. Stars on the main sequence (most stars) only very slightly increase temperature as they burn H fuel. Only when that fuel is gone do they substantially heat in their interiors to enable a new reaction. Some cannot sustain sufficient internal temperature, rapidly under gravity, then explode.
Only partially so. A star collapses under its gravitation and heats until nuclear reactions can begin.
It heats by shrinking [converting potential energy to heat]. Once fusion begins, the star stops shrinking [no more heating due to gravity] and all its energy is now generated by fusion [with the exception of the minuscule amount (one in a thousand) generated at the surface by magnetic reconnection – powering the tiny sunspots cycle variation of TSI].
Don’t disagree. My original point was that both kinetic and nuclear energy changes are required to produce a star and enable it to irradiate. Without either one — no radiation.
My original point was that both kinetic and nuclear energy changes are required to produce a star and enable it to irradiate. Without either one — no radiation.
What you are missing is that the two mechanisms do not work at the same time: first the kinetic energy [while the sun is shrinking, and no fusion] and then fusion [when the sun stopped shrinking, and no gravity-generated heat].
@ B.K.
Energy contained within a gas molecule as translational (kinetic) and quantized molecular bond energy are distinct, although they can be transferred from one to another. Don’t belittle the substantial role of radiation energy in the universe, as opposed to kinetic energy.
Let me now introduce the simplest possible explanation for a mass induced surface temperature enhancement.
Conduction diverts surface energy from radiation to convection which introduces a degree of opacity to the radiative flow from the surface.
That is it.
Opacity to a radiative flux need not be limited to radiatively active materials after all.
Non radiative matter can introduce such opacity simply by conduction creating convection.
It doesn’t even matter whether conduction and convection draw their energy directly from the surface or from the radiative flux after it has left the surface.
Convective activity creates opacity to a radiative flux, period.
The more mass is involved in that activity the higher the surface temperature rises.
One might reasonably ask why opacity from convection is to be preferred as against opacity from back radiation as the cause of a greenhouse effect.
To answer that we need only consider hydrostatic equilibrium.
Simply put, convective activity is a product of balancing the upward pressure gradient force against the downward force of gravity. Thus convection creates hydrostatic equilibrium.
If one then introduces a radiative imbalance such as is proposed by AGW theory then that imbalance, left uncorrected, will destroy hydrostatic equilbrium and lead to the loss of the atmosphere.
It has long been acknowledged that convective adjustments stabilise or neutralise radiative imbalances within any atmosphere at hydrostatic equilibrium.
Thus , since atmospheres subsist indefinitely,the radiative characteristics of GHGs do not have any effect on surface temperature.
Case closed.
Stephen,
I doubt that those who are true believers in the radiative paradigm as essential for raising the earth’s temp above 255K will take the energy to understand what you’ve said.
Let me rephrase. Along the way let me note that although Willis and I had a major discussion during our last encounter over the atmospheric mass effect, this time around Willis hasn’t responded to a single thing I’ve posted. I’ll let readers make of that what they will.
An atmosphere can absorb energy by virtue of its mass and its density. Its density is determined largely by pressure. In the greenhouse gas paradigm, the atmosphere can’t absorb or hold energy; this is the implicit assumption. The assumption must be present because only by assuming this can they then introduce a mechanism to account for surface insulation, and this is by GHGs.
And we are talking about surface insulation: this is what GHGs supposedly do. They insulate by increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules in the lower atmosphere; since gas temperature is by definition the amount of kinetic energy per unit volume, then its supposed that the atmosphere is heated by GHG internal energy imparted to other molecules in accordance with the equipartition theorem. But, as soon as any volume of air heats, it rises: it’s immediately countered by a convective response. Warmer air rises. So the next response is to say that it’s all about emissions height, because we have this thing called pressure that doesn’t do much of anything at all at, and doesn’t allow for atmospheric density and for the atmosphere to hold heat, but what it DOES do as it stands by in the wings is allow us to count down from the emissions height, using the lapse rate, to get the surface temperature. Pressure is largely dismissed and unrealized.
So two implicit assumptions in the greenhouse theory for earth’s temperature are: one, the atmosphere can’t hold heat by itself without the aid of GHGs; and two, that pressure is largely derivative (for theoretical purposes) and doesn’t do anything in the atmosphere, with the exception of it’s function in the lapse rate.
In any case we note that in Willis hypothetical planet heated constantly on all sides, the atmosphere must necessarily absorb heat. There’s no way around this. Furthermore, since there is no night side and no cold poles on this evenly-lit planet, there’s no way for the atmosphere to cool. Furthermore, as pressure increases, the atmosphere must heat up. Why? Because pressure is heating the atmosphere exactly as happens when one pumps up a bicycle tire. No, I’m kidding, and by now hopefully everyone can see what really happens: since gas temperature is by definition not the translational kinetic energy of one or two molecules but instead the collective translational energy of all the molecules within a given volume, then the more molecules you have with the exact same translational kinetic energy in a volume of gas, then the higher is the temperature of that gas, by definition. No way around it. Denser gases can hold more molecules. Repeat: denser gases can hold more molecules. That’s the essence of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory.
It is impossible to deny that an atmosphere can hold energy all by itself, without any aid of GHGs, yet this is exactly what those who hold the greenhouse theory implicitly deny. Where does the extra energy come from? There is no extra energy. The “secret” is that the energy of the suns in Willis’ planet affect the mass of the atmosphere as well.
Consider a rock salt atmosphere one km thick, as explained before. Rock salt (halite) has very low IR absorption and is a mineral that can be clear. For our purposes we’ll say it’s clear, completely transparent to incoming solar radiation, and completely transparent to IR. Does the rock salt heat up in contact with the planet’s surface? Yes, it does; we know it does. Does it insulate the planet? Yes, it must. Is any energy magically created by the rock salt? No. Does the planet emit more than it receives? No. The rock salt functions exactly the same as the theoretical greenhouse gas atmosphere. We KNOW that it’s possible for the rock salt to warm, and we also know that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for conservation of energy to be violated: exactly as happens in the greenhouse theory.
Don132
@ Don132
Without GHG, the atmosphere CAN hold energy and can gain it from surface conduction. What it cannot do in absence of GHG is absorb or emit IR radiation.
GHG produce warming because they emit IR to space from higher altitudes where it is colder than the surface. That basic concept is simple.
Weather satellites like CERES measure both incoming solar and outgoing IR radiation across a broad spectrum. From the relative rate of outgoing IR they can determine the temperature of the emission and thus the approximate height. IR directly from the surface (no IR absorption) comes from the surface. IR from GHG come from greater altitudes AND have much lower fluxes.
Incoming solar is only very slightly smaller than outgoing IR. The difference is partly global warming and partly things like energy storage in increasing plant growth.
Pressure changes and air movement in the atmosphere are the result of energy variations within the atmosphere and have essentially no role in GHG warming.
donb: “Pressure changes and air movement in the atmosphere are the result of energy variations within the atmosphere and have essentially no role in GHG warming.”
But the overall pressure of an atmosphere largely determines the density of the atmosphere and therefore how much heat it can hold: pressure matters on a global scale before we even talk about atmospheric circulation.
I was wrong in saying that an implicit assumption in the greenhouse theory is that the atmosphere can’t hold any energy. But this is assumed in Willis’ model.
Don132
Conduction diverts surface energy from radiation to convection
By initially causing the surface to cool, this causes an imbalance at the surface since the loss of energy to space can only be by radiation from the surface. This means that the surface will warm up until it is in equilibrium at which point the atmosphere at the surface will be at the same temperature as the surface, which will be at the same temperature as it was in the absence of an atmosphere. In the case of a non-uniform surface there will be a change in T (but not T^4) due to Holder’s inequality considerations. The hotspots will be cooler and the cold spots warmer due to atmospheric heat transfer but the total heat loss from the surface to space will be the same as it was in the absence of the atmosphere.
That is case closed.
“By initially causing the surface to cool,”
That is only step i) in my description.
You are determined not to follow through to the conclusion aren’t you ?
Due to convection the air at the surface is constantly replenished and then rises itself to make room for yet more so no there is no equilibrium locally. You have to consider the entire circulating system, as I have done.
Okay Donb: The point is that radiation, the weaker force here; is bypassed by the instant uplift of conducted / thermalised gas expansion (it is instantaneous). The ground is normally warmer than the air (check grass min/max Ts), and ‘backradiation cannot change that because of vector physics in all normal circumstances barring possibly inversions which are rare by comparison. Study of Hans Geiger’s ‘The air above the Ground’ is very instructive. Water Vapour uplift is of course even more powerful, being only half the density of air. Radiation dominates in space and above c.6km in our particular atmosphere. Gases have too many degrees of freedom in the broad sense to be Batteries. Seawater, another matter phase, another story……. and I was refering to atmospheres, not Universes.
Physics is not a buttonned-down thing but is dynamic and opportunistic. Brett
Just came across this thread and have been trying to get through it all. A long way to go yet. I hate to comment without having read everything, but I’ve still got things to do today. Here’s what I think I’m seeing: Dr. Roy starts out by pointing out that N&Z were proved wrong by Willis because ALL of the incoming heat to a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere would be re-radiated back to space. N&Z claim (if I understand) that some of that heat would actually be transferred to the non-GHG atmosphere via conduction. The surface temperature would then rise until some sort of equilibrium is achieved, then outgoing radiation would again be the same as incoming. The main difference being a higher average temperature at the surface.
For Willis and Dr. Roy to be right, NO heat can be transferred to the atmosphere meaning there can be NO conduction. And, in fact, Willis does say that. To be fair, I didn’t follow his links so maybe he qualifies that somehow, but his responses to Stephen Wilde seem to indicate that he believes GHG are the only thing capable of interfering with planetary surface heat radiating to space. No heat is transferred to non-GH gases.
As far as I know, conduction does take place whether a material is capable of IR absorption or not. And if that’s true, then Dr. Spencer’s and Willis’s objection isn’t valid. An easy test would be to set an evacuated metal cylinder on top of a large burner and measure the temperature at which the temperature stabilizes, i.e. when thermal equilibrium is achieved. Next, fill the cylinder with nitrogen (a non-GH gas) to, say, 5000 psi and repeat the experiment. If Dr. Roy and Willis are right, NO heat will be conducted by the nitrogen and everything will be exactly the same as before. To be sure, stand really close.
I’ll stand back a few hundred feet myself. Because if I’m right, the nitrogen actually WILL conduct heat. I’m guessing it will take a lot longer for the temperature to rise since there is a lot more matter being heated. I’m also pretty sure the cylinder will explode long before you find out what the equilibrium temperature turns out to be.
Hi Dan!
1. Like you, I have skipped a lot of the comments to date, but I think I can comment on your thoughtful views. In the thought experiments, one must distinguish between an initial cold planet & non-greenhouse gas atmosphere and a steady state one at energy balance.
2. Start with a planet with no atmosphere at energy balance (so incoming Solar energy that is not reflected outward is balanced by infrared (IR) radiation outward). The incoming Solar flux (solar insolation) is about 1366 W/m^2 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation ), but is applied to a circular cross-section of the Earth. If the Earth were a perfect black body rotating rapidly, this would all be absorbed and then re-radiated over the entire surface of the sphere, which is 4 times the cross-sectional area. So at energy balance, the outgoing flux would be 1366/4 = 341.5 W/m^2.
3. When this 341.5 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be (using emissivity 1 for a perfect black body) 278.6 K (5.4 Celsius).
4. Since the mean surface temperature of the Earth is 15 Celsius (288.2 K), 9.6 degrees warmer than a perfect black body that absorbs all incoming Solar radiation (and then at energy balance re-emits the same flux at IR frequencies), there must be a mechanism for throttling the outgoing flux. That is what greenhouse gases do, the main one being water vapour and then CO2.
5. You have argued that conduction to a non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) can also throttle the outgoing flux, explaining a warmer surface for the Earth, if I have understood you correctly.
6. Yes, if a cold non-radiating atmosphere is suddenly added to that perfect black body Earth, heat will be conducted and convected to the gases until they warm up. But as the layer in contact with the hard deck surface will, during the warming up phase, be colder than the surface at 278.6 K, it cannot increase the temperature of the 278.6 K surface (for this would mean net heat flow from cold to hot, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
7. Higher layers of the non-radiating atmosphere will at energy balance be colder than the first layer in contact with the 278.6 K surface, in accord with the dry adiabatic lapse rate which can be simply derived from dU/dh = -dH/dh = – (dH/dT)(dT/dh) where gravitational potential energy of a gas molecule of mass m at altitude h is U=mgh , and enthalpy (heat content) H = Cp.T , where heat capacity at constant pressure Cp = 7k/2 per molecule for linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ). So they too cannot warm up the 278.6 K surface.
8. This entire argument holds true whatever the pressure at the Earth’s surface as long as Ideal Gas behaviour is followed. Doubling the pressure by doubling the total number of molecules in the atmosphere means that there will eventually be twice as much enthalpy (heat content) H stored in the atmosphere, so it may take longer to reach energy balance, but the 278.6 K surface temperature would remain unchanged.
9. The outgoing flux at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA) is around 240 W/m^2, as measured by satellites looking down on the Earth. This would correspond to a Planck black body (emissivity = 1) at 255 K. Hansen then said that the greenhouse effect is 288 – 255 = 33 degrees, and this has been widely repeated in the literature.
10. However, this assumes that the albedo of the Earth remains the same, with or without greenhouse gases. This is unrealistic, since water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, and clouds dramatically affect the albedo.
11. If we consider the Earth totally devoid of clouds, which means no water vapour, no oceans, no lakes or rivers, no life forms including vegetation, etc., then the albedo would be similar to that of the Moon, at 0.136 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon ).
12. Since 13.6% of the incoming Solar radiation would be reflected back to space, the flux absorbed would be reduced by that amount, and at energy balance the flux emitted as IR would be reduced to 1366 W/m^2 (1 – 0.136)/4 = 295.1 W/m^2. This would correspond to a black body of emissivity 0.98 (an experimental value for the Earth’s surface) at 269.9 K. Therefore the greenhouse effect, still real, would be approximately 288.2 – 269.9 = 18.3 degrees. And this cannot be explained by pressure of non-greenhouse gases. Hope this helps.
“as the layer in contact with the hard deck surface will, during the warming up phase, be colder than the surface at 278.6 K, it cannot increase the temperature of the 278.6 K surface (for this would mean net heat flow from cold to hot, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics).”
I think that is the Dragon Slayer argument but it is wrong because there is nothing to stop an atmosphere colder than the surface from insulating and warming the surface as a result of convective overturning converting KE to PE and back again
The non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) means no emission of IR, but by Kirchhoff’s law, that also means no absorption of IR either. So how can a cold atmosphere “insulate” and warm the surface whose IR emission would stream unthrottled through the transparent atmosphere to outer space?
Your constant invocation of “convective overturning” resembles a perpetual motion machine. Yes, during the warming up phase, heat is transported up by convection to upper layers of the atmosphere where the temperature is initially cooler due to the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
But textbook diagrams showing circular cross-section convection cells transporting warm air downward are wrong. Anyone who has occupied the lower bunk in a winter log cabin heated by a small wood-burning stove knows that the heat transported by convection produces a plume upward from the stove top to form a hot, less dense layer at the ceiling which spreads laterally, roasting the occupant of the upper bunk, but leaving the lower bunk mostly in the cold.
Yes, strong upward convection transports heat up near the Equator, and the less dense air can be driven at altitude toward the Poles by the centrifuge effect (more dense stuff moves toward the Equator, but less dense stuff moves away, just as less dense helium balloons move upward against gravity when the surrounding air is more dense). Then, as this dry air cools via radiation from greenhouse gases to outer space, it contracts, and when it falls back to Earth, it warms up and creates warm dry deserts that form a band at mid-latitudes.
But without greenhouse gases that radiate IR to outer space, this cycle would be broken. Heat loss by conduction and convection to outer space is a no go.
Roger,
The lack of meteorology knowledge shows up in your suggestion that diagrams of convection cells show warm air being transported downward.
They show cold air sinking downward but becoming warmer as it descends due to adiabatic compression but throughout the descent it remains colder and denser than the adjoining rising columns of air because the surroundings warm at the same rate as does the descending air so that the density differential is maintained.
You are by no means alone in that error. Adiabatic processes are counter intuitive and need careful thought.
Also I have found the flaw in your description.
You cannot just add a cold atmosphere to a rocky planet and expect it to be in gaseous form unless you have already injected enough energy into it yourself to keep it suspended off the surface as a gas.
You must add the gas as an initial solid at the temperature of space whereupon it will at first sit as a solid on the cold side and on the warm side it will draw energy from the irradiated surface until it has enough energy to stay off the surface. Over time, due to rotation or circulation the cold side will also draw energy from the surface to become a gas.
It will never become a gas unless it absorbs energy that would otherwise have been radiated to space.
In other words the need for the material introduced by you to divert energy from outgoing IR before becoming a gas effectively adds an element of opacity to outgoing IR
Your entire description misses the need to supply energy from the surface to get the gases to hydrostatic equilibrium in the first place.
You can’t just add it yourself ab inito and then declare that some magic force holds the mass of the gases off the surface which is what you have inadvertently done.
Hot air balloons go up , cool and come down.
Hot air balloons do not descend-in the “greenhouse gas ” world of of madness the hot air ballon would descend and heat the surrounding area.
I use hot air balloons others use Greenhouses. I think the hot air balloon is more realistic.
Roger Taguchi:
“The non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) means no emission of IR, but by Kirchhoff’s law, that also means no absorption of IR either. So how can a cold atmosphere “insulate” and warm the surface whose IR emission would stream unthrottled through the transparent atmosphere to outer space?”
Because the atmosphere absorbs kinetic energy through conduction from the surface. The denser it is, the more energy it absorbs. A pure N2 atmosphere has no way of radiating that kinetic energy away.
Don132
Roger, this is probably the clearest and most concise explanation I’ve seen. We’re in the middle of putting a birthday party together, so I’m not able to respond as well as I would like. But I did want to thank you for your reply.
Your no. 8 is obviously where people start to disagree and it’s certainly where I start having a hard time wrapping my head around what is going on. One could almost argue that because an atmosphere is transferring heat around a planet, the dark side must necessarily be hotter than it would be in a vacuum and thus, per S-B, radiating even more energy out to space, proving that the presence of an atmosphere actually COOLS a planet.
Of course, you aren’t arguing that, but then why not? I’m not trying to be snarky, just wanting to understand.
If no. 8 applies then it must also apply to GHGs aas well.
Good to see that a newcomer gets the point.
If a surface always radiates to space at a rate commensurate with the surface temperature as predicted by S-B then there is no way to get any energy into the gas molecules to get an atmosphere into position in the first place.
The truth is that gas molecules can only be suspended off the surface by taking energy away from outgoing IR and once off the surface they start to create opacity to the outgoing IR flux whether they have radiative capacity or not.
I said above that it is case closed, and it is.
Thanks, Roger Taguchi, for your eloquent and understandable response and explanation. I was only addressing the actual topic of this article and Stephen here explains my problem with Dr. Roy’s “gotcha” argument.
I have immense respect for both Dr. Spencer and Willis, but I am not yet convinced their objection (this specific one) is correct.
As far as N&Z goes, it makes intuitive sense to me that heat conducted into even an N2 atmosphere would not be evenly distributed, due to gravity causing a higher pressure at the surface that decreases with altitude. Then, as explained by the ideal gas laws, the temperature would be higher where the pressure is higher, resulting in a higher surface temperature than would exist in a vacuum.
Intuition isn’t science, of course, but I’ve yet to see an explanation (that I can understand) of why the paragraph above can’t be true.
LS, I wrote ‘runs on nuclear powered KE” so Strawman to you, expect better. Please describe the latest on energy’s path to the solar surface. I see convective plasma there, but it must be a very interesting path that far, and very long too…. Brett
Please describe the latest on energy’s path to the solar surface. I see convective plasma there
From the core to about 0.7 solar radius the energy travels as gamma ray and X-ray radiation. No convection. The interior is stably stratified [like the Earth’s Stratosphere]. As the radiation nears the 0.7 R point, the opacity increases [because the temperature falls, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%27_opacity_law ] and becomes so large that convection becomes the more efficient mode of energy transport until the ‘surface’ where the material becomes thin enough that convection can no longer transport the energy. Then the energy streams out from the photosphere as radiation again. The matter there is not really a plasma; it is no more conductive than ordinary seawater [only one in ten thousand atoms is ionized]. note that it is the opacity that causes convection, not, as St. Wilder believes, the other way around.
All of this is well-understood in quantitative detail. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_zone#Stability_against_convection
“note that it is the opacity that causes convection, not, as St. Wilder believes, the other way around.”
Nor relevant to the current discussion since no hard surface illuminated from outside.
Nor relevant to the current discussion since no hard surface illuminated from outside
Very relevant, as it shows that convection does not add or subtract anything from the energy transport.
Your [wrong] statement was that convection causes opacity. It is the other way around [Schwarzschild’s criterion for convection is generally valid]. If you have difficulty understanding this, try to explain why you think convection causes opacity.
With a hard surface illuminated from outside (quite unlike a star) you have to get energy from the surface to a potential gas molecule to get it lifted off the surface.
That requires energy that would otherwise have radiated to space. Once multiple molecules have lifted off then they will inevitably convect amongst themselves and retain their energy store indefinitely by recycling it continually between KE and PE. In the process they provide an insulating function that raises surface temperature above S-B
So we have a scenario whereby there is a difference between IR at the surface and IR exiting to space.
That constitutes atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR.
It is true that once aloft the convecting gases do not add or subtract anything from the background energy transport but you have ignored the energy required for initial lift off which did temporarily subtract from outgoing IR energy transport and it will never be added back unless the gas molecules fall back to the surface.
In a star, without a hard surface illuminated by external energy, you do not require that initial slug of energy deducted from a background in/out energy exchange to cause lift off from the hard surface so you have raised a straw man and at your level of competence you must have been aware of that.
It is hard to get something as pseudo scientific as this. Pure nonsense, no understanding of the physics. Dunning-Kruger effect of high caliber. If you want to learn about convection, study this:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/kud/teaching/4.Convection.pdf
I have looked at your link but cannot see where it describes the energy required to raise gas molecules off a hard surface.
Please could you direct me to it?
Thanks.
cannot see where it describes the energy required to raise gas molecules off a hard surface.
Because that is totally irrelevant. Any gas will expand to fill any volume [confined by gravity]. It will convect or not depending on the temperature gradient. The ‘hard surface’ is also irrelevant, as the gas will expand where it is regardless. Your silly ideas are ‘not even wrong’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
A planet in the cold of space has a hard, cold surface. It is the materials on that surface that become gases when warmed up.
When they become gases they absorb energy in order to lift up against gravity.
Your objection is wholly misplaced because recognition of the surface / atmosphere boundary is essential to the mass induced greenhouse effect within planetary atmospheres.
None of your comments relate to that scenario.
All you do is spout abuse.
A planet in the cold of space has a hard, cold surface. It is the materials on that surface that become gases when warmed up.
Nonsense. E.g. the oxygen in our atmosphere was never frozen solid to be warmed up [by what? the sun?].
Your notions are just ridiculous and you deserve whatever you get.
Ok, You want to shift the argument.
I accept that planets do not generally start with a hard surface and that the atmospheric gases have never been solids. I used a conceptual model to simplify things because the outcome is just the same.
The atmospheric gases acquired their energy directly from the sun assisted by a bit of gravitational attraction in the early days and so were already in place as gases when the surface congealed from the area of gas and debris to form the planet.
All that represents is a shortcut which avoided the need for conduction from the surface.
The gases still require energy to hold them off the surface just as if the scenario had started with a cold hard surface. That energy will be released if the planet cools such that they fall to the ground and become solids.
If you then warm up the planet again it will be exactly as I have described to you and your stuff about stars does not cover it.
The reason I have to go into such detailed verbal gymnastics is the ever increasing complexity of the desperate attempts to deny the very simple concept of a discrete , closed, adiabatic energy loop between surface and atmosphere using non radiative energy transfer processes.
very simple concept of a discrete , closed, adiabatic energy loop between surface and atmosphere using non radiative energy transfer processes.
What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.
The Sun is a good example of this. The energy flux just under the convection zone is the same as that escaping from the ‘surface’ [= top of convection zone]. The energy transport in the convection zone is non-radiative and closed. No energy is added or subtracted. Same with the Earth’s troposphere.
Case closed.
My description of the process answers your first sentence in detail. Have you read it ?
The sun is different because it supplies its own energy from inception whereas energy has to be supplied to an atmosphere around a planet and that energy in the atmosphere is then subjected to a throughput of energy in and out of the planet / atmosphere system. Apples and Pears come to mind.
The sun is different
No, the solar convection zone receives its energy from below and radiates it away at the top. The transparent terrestrial atmosphere is also heated from below and radiates it away at the top. No difference. The convection in both cases does not ‘create’ any more energy. What goes out is just what comes in.
No hard surface irradiated from outside. Not applicable.
No hard surface
Hard surface not required. This is your pseudo scientific notion that is ‘not even wrong’.
A molecule 100 meter off the ground does not know about any ‘hard surface’.
You are not gaining any ground here. Time to fold and go away.
A molecule 100 metres off a hard surface requires a specific amount of energy to lift it to that height.
In a sun the amount of energy required needs to be measured from the centre of gravity which is a central point.
With energy coming from inside the sun there is no complete dependence on energy coming from outside so as to flow in and out of the system.
The scenarios are not comparable.
The description I have provided is logically and physically sound.
The description I have provided is logically and physically sound
No, it is complete nonsense.
Explain why a ‘hard surface’ is necessary.
It is preferable rather than necessary. Makes the energy transfers far simpler and creates far greater stability.
Inside a star it is a mash up of all sorts of physical and chemical phenomena the effects of which are very hard to disentangle, hence your job.
It is also very much simpler to have an single outside energy source coming in and passing through the system on its way back out.
The convecting layers in your star have radiation above and below which makes things far more complex.
Due to the simplicity of a planet with a hard surface it is easier to construct a narrative showing the sequence of events, which you have never addressed apart from being abusive.
I only engaged with you as a result of your throw away sarcasm in a reply to someone else.
The convecting layers in your star have radiation above and below which makes things far more complex.
No, it is actually very simple: radiation comes up from below and escapes from the top. The energy going in is just the same as the energy going out. Convection does nothing additionally.
construct a narrative showing the sequence of events, which you have never addressed
Well, I have demonstrated that it is nonsense, and a ‘narrative’ is not science. Numbers, equations, etc are.
‘What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.’
Are you saying that accelerating a body of gas in one direction and then accelerating it back in the opposite direction doesn’t affect temperature? Where does the energy come from to do all that work? No entropy effect?
Where does the energy come from to do all that work?
You tell me. Inquiring mind wants to know.
Bernard Lodge: Where does the energy come from to do all that work?
Leif: ‘You tell me. Inquiring mind wants to know.’
I don’t know. My guess is that temperature would be lower as I can’t see any other source of energy to drive the air flows. I was hoping you would know!
🙂
Leif, you stated;
“What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.”
.
The overall effect is not “none”!
The overall effect is to create a thermal gradient, and a surface temperature enhancement.
And that is perfectly in accord with observations.
So; where is the “greenhouse effect” then?
So; where is the “greenhouse effect” then?
The GHE has nothing to do with the convection.
The ‘GHE’ has nothing to do with anything; it does not exist.
The ‘GHE’ has nothing to do with anything; it does not exist.
Of course it exists. Please don’t try to play dumb.
Going back to your initial point:
Opacity is a resistance to transmission. I note that you say opacity precedes convection.
and that there is no convection without opacity.
Given that convection from a hard surface will occur within a non radiative atmosphere how do you explain that ?
Also, convection is required to raise an atmosphere off the ground (where one starts from a cold surface) so you need to have that convection before there can be any opacity.
Maybe what you say holds true within a star but not for a planet with an atmosphere ?
Also, convection is required to raise an atmosphere off the ground (where one starts from a cold surface) so you need to have that convection before there can be any opacity.
You have no idea. The temperature at the surface during the day is much higher than above it. Conduction heats the first few centimeters of the air. The heated air expands and rises [=convection]. Convection requires a steep temperature gradient which you get by the air getting thinner with altitude in connection with the poor conductivity of air. So, it is opacity that controls convection, not the other way around, as you mistakenly assert. It is hard to discuss your nonsense in any meaningful way.
Well there you are referring to conductive opacity I assume. But you still need convection to put that atmosphere in place initially so in that sense convection comes first.
Convection is not something that suddenly starts within a previously non convecting atmosphere. Convection is intimately involved in getting the atmosphere up from a cold surface in the first place.
Even for an atmosphere that was never congealed on the surface the convection was occurring amongst individual molecules from when the very first molecules clumped together so even there convection preceded opacity.
But we were considering radiative opacity because less IR gets out to space than was available at the surface even in the case of a non radiative atmosphere. Again, you need the atmosphere in place before opacity and atmospheres convect from the very first moment.
So, the opacity before convection meme is just a convenient construct. In all cases convection is there from the very beginning so really one should say that they occur simultaneously.
Just semantics really and no excuse for all your rude comments.
Convection is intimately involved in getting the atmosphere up from a cold surface in the first place.
The surface is warmer than the atmosphere during the day, which is what gets convection going.
Opacity is a radiative term. Can’t redefine that the mean whatever you like.
Convection is not something that suddenly starts within a previously non convecting atmosphere
Yes it is. Just need to get the temperature to get along. Ever heard about temperature inversions and how that stops the convection, until the inversion disperses and convection starts up again? I guess not.
Inversions are localised, short term and shallow. Convection continues above them.
No convection, no atmosphere.
But still, I’ve learned more about the sun. Would be interested in seeing the vertical temperature profile through one of those solar convecting regions.
No convection, no atmosphere.
Oh, yes. Heavy stars have deep, extensive non-convecting atmospheres.
Would be interested in seeing the vertical temperature profile through one of those solar convecting regions.
You obviously did not take the trouble to look at the link I gave you:
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4020/lecture01_solar_interior.pdf
Slide #3.
So, no need to continue to embarrass yourself.
Case closed.
The stupendous densities and consequent resistance to convection within Heavy Stars are not under discussion here.
Looking at The Convective Zone Temperature Gradient (Dalsgaard Model 1) no fig number shown I see an interesting thermal gradient through the Convective Zone. Could you explain it please ?
It looks like it is indeed cooler at the top of the convective zone and the bottom is warmer than the layer below which is what I suggested would be the case if my contentions are correct.
You have now said this:
“The energy transport is not by emission [radiation], but by bodily moving the matter. And as much goes up as goes down.”
Whilst the matter moves up and down it is radiating as per S-B is it not ?
Meanwhile the circulation up and down is converting KE to PE in the rising columns and PE to KE in the descending columns and then that KE released at the base circulates to the bottom of the next rising column just as I say happens in the atmosphere.
The outcome appears to be as I predicted and mirrors our atmosphere unless you have a better explanation.
I said the case is closed, but will give one more chance to learn.
The stupendous densities and consequent resistance to convection within Heavy Stars are not under discussion here.
The densities are very low. Lower than air in most of the layers of the star.
Looking at The Convective Zone Temperature Gradient (Dalsgaard Model 1) no fig number shown I see an interesting thermal gradient through the Convective Zone. Could you explain it please ?
The temperature depends on the density which varies a lot. Look at the left part of the figure.
It looks like it is indeed cooler at the top of the convective zone and the bottom is warmer than the layer below which is what I suggested would be the case if my contentions are correct.
The temperature is not important [as it simply depends on the rapidly dwindling density]. what matters is the amount of energy transported and that is constant throughout the zone. the same at the bottom as at the top.
Meanwhile the circulation up and down is converting KE to PE in the rising columns and PE to KE in the descending columns and then that KE released at the base circulates to the bottom of the next rising column just as I say happens in the atmosphere.
No, that is not what happens. there is no KE ‘released’ at the bottom. Here is a good explanation of the process:
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/STARS/Lecture08.pdf
The outcome appears to be as I predicted and mirrors our atmosphere unless you have a better explanation.
I have given you a good deal of explanation which totally debunked your ideas.
In fact, as people who follow this would appreciate, I have specifically shown that every assertion you have ever made here is false.
Well that link has a lot about adiabatic processes, convective circulations and density variations so it by no means contradicts what I said.
Furthermore the chart shows cooler at the top of the convecting layer and hotter at the base with the base being hotter than the radiative layer below exactly as one would expect from the usual KE PE exchange in atmospheric overturning.
I see that specific conditions must apply for convection to arise in a star but convection in planetary atmospheres is ubiquitous. Hence I was right to tell you that the two scenarios were not compatible.
Your objections to my adiabatic loop concept in a normal planetary atmosphere do not appear to be valid.
Furthermore the chart shows cooler at the top of the convecting layer and hotter at the base with the base being hotter than the radiative layer below
‘hotter’ is the wrong metric as that is just a reflection of the density. The important point is that the energy flowing in at the bottom is equal to the energy flowing out at the top. There is no KE/PE conversion involved.
Your objections to my adiabatic loop concept in a normal planetary atmosphere do not appear to be valid
Vacuous hand waving. If you think you have a point for point argument/objections that you have not already spouted, you should come out with those. Right now, you appear to have nothing [following your use of ‘appear’]
Energy in to the Earth and out from the Earth are the same but there is a large ongoing PE KE exchange within the atmosphere. So it must be within convecting regions in the sun.
The adiabatic loop stores energy which shows up as a higher temperature at the base than would otherwise be expected. Just like that chart of the temperature gradient across the sun’s convecting layer.
The adiabatic loop stores energy which shows up as a higher temperature at the base than would otherwise be expected.
The energy flow at the base is just that that comes from the core, nothing more and nothing less. The exact same energy after a few weeks flow out of the surface. The convection does nothing except simply transporting the energy from point A to point B. If you can’t grok that, you just demonstrate that this whole 1000+ comment discussion was totally lost on you.
From A to B with a delay as PE and KE circulate up and down within the moving mass which increases the temperature at the base of the convecting layer above what would be expected from a steady outward flow as shown by the thermal irregularity in the chart in your own link.
Nothing like a fuel delivery.
The link says the mechanical processes are the source of the heat NOT that the mechanical processes are just passing it along from the core.
I think we should stop there since we will never agree and the real subject of this thread is Earth’s atmosphere.
The link says the mechanical processes are the source of the heat NOT that the mechanical processes are just passing it along from the core.
You do not read the link correctly. What it says is that heating of the Corona [to millions of degrees] is done by crashing waves and magnetic reconnection. That increases the solar irradiance by 1/1000 of what is simply brought up from the core by convection. That you get fooled [deliberately?] by this just shows your willingness to misunderstand things for the purpose of argument. A scientific no-no.
The energy for the crashing waves and so forth is provided by the thermal enhancement of the energy flow caused by the mechanical processes referred to.
The important point is that the convecting regions are hotter than the layers beneath due to purely mechanical non radiative processes which is exactly what the text says so whatever you say next in order to get the last word can be safely ignored.
I also predicted that that would be the case even before I saw the temperature profile.
The important point is that the convecting regions are hotter than the layers beneath due to purely mechanical non radiative processes
Except that they are not:
I also predicted that that would be the case even before I saw the temperature profile.
Since the ‘prediction’ is wrong, so is your ‘theory’.
It is this capacity for lying outright in face of evidence that has kept this thread going for 1100+ comments.
Shame on you.
Wrong chart.
There is another one which appears to show what I said and I invited you to let me know if I had misinterpreted it. Maybe we are at cross purposes in which case your allegations are wrong.
Kindly apologise for your hate speech.
Wrong chart. There is another one which appears to show what I said
No, there isn’t, because that is not what the situation actually is.
The point remains that the actual temperatures are not ‘as you said’ and that therefore your ‘theory’ is wrong.
hate speech
Deception must always be countered in a deliberated and passionless manner. When the policeman tells the accused that the evidence shows that the accused is lying, that is not ‘hate speech’. As a lawyer you ought to know that.
Just post the chart on page 8 and explain the difference.
Just post the chart on page 8 and explain the difference.
Please pay attention
Inversions are localised, short term and shallow. Convection continues above them.
Actually not. The stratosphere is global, long term, and extensive.
No convection, no atmosphere.
Not so. A star of 1.5 solar masses is radiative throughout, no convection whatsoever:
There is convection in the stratosphere known as the Brewer Dobson circulation. Probably also in the mesosphere but it has not yet been observed.
I’m considering planetary atmospheres above a rocky surface not great balls of gas which have their own special features that can dispense with convection.
There is convection in the stratosphere known as the Brewer Dobson circulation
As you point out, this is a circulation and not convection. The circulation is driven by atmospheric waves [see e.g. Holton, 1990].
Atmospheric waves have a convective component so you are hiding behind semantics and over fine distinctions.
Some would say that atmospheric waves are created by uneven convection in the troposphere
Atmospheric waves have a convective component so you are hiding behind semantics and over fine distinctions.
There is a very real physical difference. Produce a link that details how large that purported convective component is.
From Leif’s link:
“Convection is a familiar phenomenon in our everyday lives: for example,
our daily weather is caused by convection in the Earth’s atmosphere. The
surface of the Sun (Figure 8.2) is not smooth; instead we see bright granules
separated by darker intergranular lanes. We know from Doppler velocity
measurements that the motion of the bright regions is mostly outwards,
while in the dark intergranular regions the gas is moving downwards. The
motions and temperature inhomogeneities seen in the granulation pattern
are attributed to the hydrogen convection zone just below the solar photosphere. The bulk motions of the gas and associated magnetic fields are
thought to be the source of the mechanical energy flux that heats the solar
chromosphere and corona”
Convection is the source of the mechanical energy flux. Strange that, in light of Leif’s comments.
Convection is the source of the mechanical energy flux.
Convection is the source of all the energy we get from the sun in the sense that the energy generated in the core [the real source] 100,000 years ago is moved by convection [in a few weeks] the last part of its journey to the surface. Like a gas-delivery truck is the immediate source of the energy that runs my car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)
for the uninitiated
You said this:
“radiation comes up from below and escapes from the top. The energy going in is just the same as the energy going out. Convection does nothing additionally.”
I would expect the base of the convecting layer to be hotter than the top of the convecting layer and also hotter than the top of the layer immediately beneath it.
That would be a result of the time taken for overturning in the convecting layer slowing down the rate of emission upwards and heating the base of the convecting layer just as I say happens at the base of a convecting atmosphere.
Unless there is some other feature of stars that prevents it.
That would be a result of the time taken for overturning in the convecting layer slowing down the rate of emission upwards
Again, nonsense. The energy transport is not by emission [radiation], but by bodily moving the matter. And as much goes up as goes down.
2 Simple questions Mr Svalgaard.
What were the conditions of the mass before it became a Sun or Star and why did it become one?
What were the conditions of the mass before it became a Sun or Star and why did it become one?
It was an interstellar clouds [we observe many today] that contracted due to its gravity.
https://www.space.com/35526-solar-system-formation.html
I wrote ‘runs on nuclear powered KE” so Strawman to you,
Probably an ignorant [or deliberate] muddle. The Sun does not run on KE, nuclear powered or otherwise. The KE [assuming you mean Kinetic Energy] is an effect of the nuclear fusion. The fusion produces gamma rays that keep the sun hot.
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Not true in the slightest. Consider the surface of the earth. It loses energy in three ways—as sensible energy, as latent energy, and as radiative energy.
The fact that the surface is losing energy as sensible and latent energy does NOT mean it is not radiating to space exactly as S-B says. It absolutely is doing so, AS WELL AS losing energy by conduction.
What happens is that whatever energy is lost through conduction cools the surface, so per S-B it is radiating less. But there is nothing to stop it from both radiating per S-B and at the same time conducting—the earth does that continually.
w.
Ok.
The surface cools and less is radiated to space so for a while the planet does not radiate as much as is coming in.
That is step i) of my description.
Tell me what happens next.
On an airless body such as the moon the heat transfer equation for a location (on the equator for example) is as follows:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4
where Cs is the effective heat capacity of the surface, Ts is the surface temperature, Ri(t) is the time dependent insolation and -εσTs^4 is the radiational heat loss term.
At dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases. Ri(t) follows a cos curve, maximizing when the sun is at ‘noon’, the temperature follows with a slight lag and on the moon at dusk is ~30K above the dawn temperature.
Add a IR transparent atmosphere and the system’s governed by the following equations:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4 – kh(Ts-Ta) (1)
CadTa/dt = kh(Ts-Ta) (2)
As before, at dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases, but not as fast as before because of the the additional conduction term. That conduction causes the air temperature, Ta, to increase as indicated by equation 2 with a lag maximizing slightly later than the surface at a slightly lower temperature. After dusk Ri(t) becomes zero and Ts cools due to radiation heat transfer as in the previous case, however the surface cools more slowly as Ta is higher than Ts. The air near the surface will also cool as indicated by equation 2. To accurately model the system you would need more equations for additional levels of the atmosphere, such as:
CadTa1/dt = kh(Ts-Ta1) – kh(Ta1-Ta2) (2)
CadTa2/dt = kh(Ta1-Ta2) (3)
Etc.
Despite Wilde’s assertion, there is no guarantee that convection will take place, it will only do so if the Rayleigh number exceeds 1000-2000.
See a discussion of the Rayleigh number here: https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/free-convection-and-rayleigh-number.html
Phil,
I’m aware of the Rayleigh constraints on the inception of convection which involve viscosity resisting upward movement and radiative leakage delaying the point at which the required density differentials are achieved.
However, in our atmosphere at least, viscosity and radiation leakage are not sufficient to cause any significant delay.
Even with a much greater viscosity and a lot more radiative leakage (such as on Venus) it doesn’t really matter since the density variations in the horizontal plane are way greater than that which is needed to get convection started.
So, you are technically correct but it adds nothing to this discussion.
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 11:44 pm
You sack of pig excrement, perhaps you feel free to toss around such scurrilous accusations because you or your friends are in the habit of setting out to “conceal the truth”. Or not. I don’t know, and I don’t care. Either way, making such an accusation is a despicable act.
I do not set out to conceal the truth, nor did I “load the dice”, and you are a slimy scumball to accuse me of doing those dishonorable things without a single scrap of evidence.
I set up my thought experiment to simplify the situation so that the issues would be clear. My thought experiment is a theoretically possible world. There is nothing concealed. The issues that it raises seem to be clear to everyone but you and a few others. But I NEVER set out to conceal the truth.
I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head and lose your vile accusations when you are discussing things with me. I am an honest and an honorable man. I do not cheat by loading dice. I do not conceal the truth. And I will not stand to be accused of being otherwise.
I was brought up under the “Captain’s Code” of “The Captain”, my great-grandfather. Part of his Code was the following:
Now, the Captain was born in 1848, a much rougher time … so despite my grandmother inculcating all of the Captain’s Code in us kid’s heads, and despite her treating lying as a mortal sin, I’ve never killed a man who called me a liar.
But as you might imagine, I think that people who accuse others of lying, concealing the truth, or loading the dice without firm, concrete evidence in hand are … well, undesirable, and not fit companions.
I’m willing to assume that the reason you are so free with your false accusations is that you had a morally deficient upbringing … but I think that we’re at the end of this conversation. Come back on another thread. You’re dead to me on this one.
Sadly,
w.
Then I accept that you did not do it deliberately in which case you are less than competent because a competent person would have selected just those two parameters to eliminate convection.
Which do you prefer ?
Besides,
Do you not recall first accusing me of fooling people and implying that those who saw my point were fools so where is the difference ?
I note above a link to comments made by Will Happer as follows:
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
which is new to me and pretty astonishing because it means that the 15mu energy allegedly blocked by a CO2 molecule is virtually certain to pass its warmth to adjoining non radiative molecules via conduction before it can contribute anything extra to the downward radiative flux.
That makes it far more likely that the mass induced greenhouse effect is the correct version and runs a coach and horses through the idea that DWIR from CO2 is even measurable by IR thermometers or anything else.
Following the comment of Philip Mulholland above I’m placing this link here as well as in reply to his comment so that it does not get lost in the thread so quickly.
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/correcting-the-kiehl-trenberth-energy-budget/
Philip is absolutely right in spotting the Trenberth error that I analysed back in 2014.
Stephen,
This is shaping up to be another of those gigantic threads (currently at 1052 comments) that I suspect will soon be closed down. In the meantime, I will jump back in here. First, ignore my geothermal segue above it is an error and is not relevant to the discussion.
What I would like to focus on however is this issue of convective balance. It is indisputable that what goes up must come down, so mass balance in vertical atmospheric movement is a given. What is not correct is to state that energy transport is in balance. This latter point is true if (and only if) there is no radiative loss to space of energy from the top of the atmosphere. This issue here is potential temperature in the stratosphere and how it is formed and maintained. Is it due to thermal interception of high energy incoming radiation by ozone (Erl Happ’s hypothesis) or is it due to latent heat released by moist air lifted aloft by convection in thunderstorms in the troposphere?
My meteorological tutor at college favoured the latent heat explanation. His contention was that because of precipitation fall out of water back to the surface (either as rain, hail or snow), the removal of water from storm clouds meant that the lifted air could no longer descend at the wet adiabatic rate and could only descend at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Consequently, there is an asymmetry in vertical energy transport during the convection that produces precipitation. One of the most interesting results of modelling studies conducted by NASA of planetary atmospheres on rotating planets is that the latitudinal reach of the Hadley Cell is determined by a planet’s daily rotation speed. On slowly rotating Venus the Hadley cell reaches the poles.
We know that the Earth’s atmosphere is semi-transparent to outgoing thermal radiation, and we also know that a solid surface is the best thermal emitter of heat. We most clearly see this in the formation of ground frost and the creation of a surface inversion layer caused by direct radiative cooling of the surface to space. Looking again at the descending limb of the Hadley Cell the descending dry air is warmed adiabatically and is in effect a gigantic foehn wind that moves heat sourced from the ITCZ poleward via the top of the atmosphere.
As thermal loss to space from a gas is an inefficient process, it is the dynamically forced descent in the Hadley Cell that delivers heat back to the surface and which provides the warmed air at ground level that can be used to power the Ferrel Cell as part of the overall motion of air and energy from the equator to the poles.
For the purpose of energy balance I’m not sure that it matters which explanation causes the tropopause but I’ve always understood it to be ozone absorbing incoming solar radiation directly. I don’t think it is latent heat released by large convective clouds because they spread out at the tropopause and radiate upwards very strongly.
In any event the entire stratosphere has a warming gradient so convection effect could not filter high enough.
As regards the energy balance there is an asymmetry between the wet and dry lapse rates.
My understanding is that the cause of the wet rate is the fact that water vapour is lighter than air so it moves up the lapse rate slope faster than air.
That introduces a distortion to the lapse rate slope as per fig 5 for condensing greenhouse gases here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
The extra warming from the dry rate offsets the extra cooling at the wet rate for a net zero effect at the surface when both rising and falling columns are taken together.
I’m not certain that was your question so please clarify if not.
Thanks Stephen.
I will study the link you provided
TTFN
Philip
Last time this discussion was closed prematurely. Suggest that it remain open longer than is typical, as there are over 1000 comments and I think this is where it gets interesting … but, unfortunately, where people may dig in to defend positions. Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
Don132
Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
Will never happen…
Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
“Will never happen…”
Some of us would like to see where the logic settles out.
Don132
I notice that Willis said this above:
“Regardless of the amount, you still have not identified the energy SOURCE supplying that 100+ W/m2 of energy continuously. ”
Now if one looks at that faulty Trenberth diagram we see that thermals and evapotranspiration come to102 W/m2
Since that energy is returned to the surface and not despatched to space it must be heating the surface.
Job done and case closed 🙂
Stephen,
Hasn’t that particular diagram been updated? I tried the same calculations on the new one and it didn’t work out as neat as it did on the one you did the corrections on.
Also Wllis mentioned earlier that the paper that started all this had some dodgy calls regarding how they got some planet – Mars? – to fit their curve. Given the discussion here have you any idea how this could be addressed?
Although the other paper they published on how to calculate the baseline blackbody emission using the moon as a reality check did make some sense to me having become more familiar with the issues in the course of this thread.
I’m not sure I trust the authors of the paper that much as scientists.
However that doesn’t necessarily reflect on your views.
Stephen Wilde said, “After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.”
The nitrogen is NOT going to flow to the dark side and descend. INSTEAD, One winds up with a temperature increase with height during the day, as the atmosphere near the ground is heated by ground conduction, gradually replaced with a NEGATIVE temperature gradient overnightt, with the atmosphere near the ground cooled by ground conduction, but as you get higher in the atmosphere there will be NO temperature change, NO atmospheric flow from day side to night side. That ground level warm dayside air is NOT going to move in to replace the denser, cool ground level nightside air.
So wrong that there is no point commenting further.
You’re evidently unaware of stable nighttime temperature inversions.
http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~lead/SkewT_Inversions.html
Agreed. Plus the amount of warming and cooling is controlled by water(vapor, clouds, ice), in parallel with IR cooling through the atmospheres IR transparent window at about 10 microns.
So what can be the net effect of CO2? As far as I can see, it reduces the turbulence of the atmosphere needed to balance the earths energy budget.
“So what can be the net effect of CO2? As far as I can see, it reduces the turbulence of the atmosphere needed to balance the earths energy budget.”
Yes, absolutely.
It is part of my wider narrative that GHGs, especially water vapour facilitate the return of energy back to the surface ready for radiation to space faster than would a non GHG atmosphere so that overall convective turbulence need be less vigorous.
The example I give is the dry, thin atmosphere of Mars which has no assistance from water vapour and so its convection needs to be so intense that it periodically kicks up planet wide dust storms when imbalances develop.
“Plus the amount of warming and cooling is controlled by water(vapor, clouds, ice), ”
ahhhhh- balm to my ears!!
“I suggest calling them regulator gasses as they cool and warm depending on the circumstances”
only a fool calls them greenhouse gasses signifying only an upwards movement in temps.
Robert Kernodle January 5, 2019 at 7:29 am
Seriously? You think that they “made a determined effort to establish a better estimate of Mars temp”, and purely by chance that ended up a) 30°C cooler than the generally accepted values and b) agreeing with their magic equation to the nearest tenth of a degree?
They have not explained what they did. They have justified what they did, and a poor justification it is.
Nothing “high-level” about it. Their equation is nothing but overfitting—they have half the number of tunable parameters as they have data points to match, and a free choice of equations. Classic overfitting. And when I said so in my post, I was rightly challenged—if you say it’s so simple, Willis, can you do it?
So I did it and got a result using fewer tunable parameters with only three-quarters of the RMS error of their equation. My equation is simpler than theirs, gets better results … and is just as bogus as theirs it, because in both cases it’s just overfitting.
It’s a meaningless curve fitting exercise, Robert. Period.
w.
There are over 1000 comments on the top post.
A lot of people are interested.
I’d say a good portion of us are still unconvinced of Willis’ argument.
Top post: “Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.
“In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.”
I think we’ve already been through this but it’s being ignored. Even if NZ are wrong, Willis’ argument is wrong. But we keep jumping around on different tangents and have a lot of arguments going on here and I don’t see this fundamental argument addressed.
The answer is that the bulk atmosphere in the absence of GHGs is “warmed” to the planet’s surface (especially so in Willis’ planet where the atmosphere can’t cool.) What this means, and why I put “warmed” in scare quotes, is that the gases within the atmosphere acquire the same kinetic energy as the surface molecules (but we really don’t know what the “temperature” of the atmosphere would be without knowing pressure, since density determines gas temperature, all else equal.) Since atmospheric gases are denser nearer the surface, more heat in the form of translational kinetic energy is concentrated at the surface. Does this warm the surface? No. Even if the atmosphere is warmed above the surface temperature of the planet (because the pressure is sufficient to warm the atmosphere above that temperature by way of concentrating the amount of kinetic energy per unit volume) the surface does not warm further. Even IF there are many more molecules per unit volume with the same kinetic energy as the surface (i.e., a “hot” gas), when they conduct with the surface there’s no change in the kinetic energy of the molecules at the surface: I believe this is what Joe Born was saying. But the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface! If the gases at the surface don’t radiate then they’re not radiating the surface, they are only conducting, and the kinetic energy of molecules of surface and atmosphere is the same, no matter how dense the atmosphere is. But how hot the atmosphere is, all else equal, depends on how dense the atmosphere is.
Assuming sufficient atmospheric pressure, at some point midway up the atmosphere the temperature will be the same as the surface; at the top of the atmosphere the temperature will be cooler than the surface (even if all the molecules have the same kinetic energy as the surface!) and at the surface the atmosphere will be warmer than the surface. The individual gas molecules will have the same kinetic energy as the surface.
Does the surface now radiate more than it receives? Why would it? Answer that simple question and show me how this is wrong, because I don’t get it. If you double the pressure of the atmosphere then this doesn’t change the kinetic energy of the molecules, even as it changes the temperature of the gas. If you add GHGs then the surface can be heated by radiation, but not so without GHGs. Despite this, the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface in a non-GHG atmosphere such as Willis’ imaginary planet.
I change my thinking more as I understand more and try to understand objections. But so far I’m not seeing any convincing arguments against the basic logic of NZ.
Don132
Stephen, if you agree with what I’ve said then copy some in response, as so far as I can tell Willis isn’t even reading my comments, but he is yours. Thanks.
Don132
Don132:
I improvidently put two thoughts together in that last comment, so in retrospect it was more complicated than necessary. Although I said I’d write only one comment, therefore, I’ll write one more. This time forget the second thought: let’s not rule out conduction or convection. Let’s take a breath and try once more.
First, let’s not forget what the question before the house is: Can the steady-state outgoing surface radiation of a planet whose atmosphere is perfectly transparent to all wavelengths exceed the radiation that the planet receives from its sun(s)?
Next, let’s make an observation: If the surface radiates, the surface had to have obtained the power it’s radiating from one of two places: (1) the sun by radiation or (2) the atmosphere by (because of the atmosphere’s perfect transparency) conduction. But any power that the surface receives from the atmosphere had to have been obtained by the atmosphere from the surface by conduction; since the atmosphere is perfectly transparent, there’s no other way. And, ultimately, the power the surface supplied the atmosphere came from the sun.
With that in mind, let’s follow two joules of energy that the sun has radiated down onto the planet. Let’s say that the planet’s surface promptly re-radiates first joule. In this connection we’ll observe an important fact: if the atmosphere is perfectly transparent, any radiation the surface emits once is lost. It’s gone. It can’t have been stored in the atmosphere, because, again, the atmosphere is perfectly transparent; radiation passes right through it without loss.
So here’s our box score so far: two joules received from the sun, one joule radiated from the surface. Rather than radiating more than it received, the surface has so far emitted less.
Now let’s follow the second joule. Let’s say the surface transfers it by conduction to the atmosphere. Perhaps at the surface the atmosphere is dense as a neutron star. Perhaps it’s as rarefied as the thermosphere. Doesn’t matter. Either way, the joule was transferred by conduction, so the surface doesn’t have either one any more. But our box score hasn’t changed: it’s still two joules in, one joule out, because the surface didn’t radiate the second joule out; it left by conduction.
But now let’s say that the atmosphere does all those things with that second joule that Mr. Wilde says happens. Frankly, I can’t make sense of what that might be. Maybe it gets transported up and down the atmosphere, gets cycled back and forth by conduction between the atmosphere and the surface a few times, gets incantations recited over it—whatever. So long as the atmosphere remains involved, though, one thing doesn’t happen: it’s not re-radiated; as we said before, if the surface has radiated it once, it’s gone unless the atmosphere isn’t completely transparent.
So again the box score remains two joules in, one joule out, not, e.g., the 2.2 joules out I described in connection with the radiative-atmosphere model.
Now let’s say that the surface gets that second joule back from the atmosphere and finally radiates it. This does change the box score, to two joules in and two joules out. Since the surface has radiated both joules, moreover, all the energy has been spent. So the surface didn’t radiate more than was received from the sun(s).
Note that it didn’t matter what Mr. Wilde did with those joules, and it didn’t matter how dense the atmosphere was. Once the surface radiated them once, they were gone, and the surface emitted only what the sun did.
That’s the difference between a non-radiating atmosphere and one that radiates: as I showed in the numerical example, the joule isn’t necessarily gone with a radiative atmosphere when the surface radiates it once; the atmosphere may radiate it back so the surface can radiate it again. That’s how the surface can radiates more in total than is receive from the sun.
the joule was transferred by conduction
The air is a very good insulator, so conduction only heats the air to a few centimeters from the surface. There is not enough air in those few centimeter to ‘take up’ that second joule.
You have already strayed away from a useful thought experiment.
No need to continue.
“The air is a very good insulator, so conduction only heats the air to a few centimeters from the surface.”
Conduction AND convection, which is essentially conduction within an atmosphere.
I don’t have time to offer a lot of response to anything but to Joe: thanks for comment. My question is, do you disagree with what I posted, and if so, what and why? Can the atmosphere be “warmer” than the surface by the logic I laid out?
I’ll have to take a break from all this. It would be good to continue so we can resolve some issues but naturally Anthony and Willis think this is silly so why bother? Bother because we can have an infinite regression of silliness: alarmists say those who deny alarm are silly, we say alarmists are silly, WUWT turns to NZ and says they’re silly, NZ says WUWT is silly, etc., etc. It would be nice to resolve some basic issues; it matters to people like me who have no horse in the race (i.e., I don’t give a damn who wins) but who so far see that NZ/Wilde/Holmes make the most sense on the most basic and fundamental level.
Pressure matters. A lot.
Don132
Pressure, along with the sun, does.
Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.
I’m taking a bit of a break too since this thread is long enough and the primary objectors are resorting to abuse whilst refusing the process of going through the logic step by step as I have said in my comment below.
I might continue to answer sensible questions from interested persons though.
Leif on pressure and sun:
“Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.”
Good point.
” … there is ample evidence for the presence of liquid surface water and even life in the Archean (3.8 to 2.5 billion years before present), so some effect (or effects) must have been compensating for the faint young Sun. A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011RG000375
Agree that the pressure theory must be consistent with the faint sun paradox.
Don132
Don132:
Sorry, but this discussion has lost its amusement value for me, so I’m not going to go back through all your comments.
I’ve already explained that (1) the only mode of heat flow between a non-radiative atmosphere and something else is conduction between it and the planet surface, so (2) at steady state that net flow must net to zero, so (3) the only source of the power for the planet surface’s radiation is the sun, and (4) since the atmosphere is non-radiative the surface can’t radiate the same energy from the sun more than once, so (5) the surface can radiate no more than it receives from the sun if the atmosphere is non-radiative.
(If the atmosphere is radiative, on the other hand, then the same energy from the sun can be exchanged radiatively between the surface and atmosphere before it’s lost to space, so the surface can radiate the same power from the sun more than once, as my arithmetic nearby would have shown you if you’d worked through it.)
You’ve rejected that logic, stating that point (2) makes no sense, your reason being that greater density means greater conduction and more warming of the surface by the atmosphere. There’s little likelihood that I could impart understanding to someone who finds that rationale compelling.
Sure, greater density means greater conduction, but it means greater conduction in both directions: more flow into the surface where the surface’s temperature is lower than the atmosphere’s, and more flow out of the surface where it’s higher. On average, though, those flows have to net to zero. Otherwise the atmosphere’s energy would increase indefinitely or decrease to zero.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wilde seems to have confused you on this point, saying thing like, “[Y]ou still have an energy store in the convecting atmosphere which constantly takes say 1 joule from the surface in one location and simultaneously returns 1 joule to the surface in another location so that the surface remains hotter than before convection started.” Sure, if convection is occurring, then heat is flowing in at one place and out at another, making one place hotter and the other cooler than if convection weren’t occurring. But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection.
Let’s set aside the fact that such local heating and cooling would actually make the surface cooler if you take the resultant radiation into account. We’ll hold in abeyance, that is, that the same radiation results from a lower average temperature when the temperature distribution is more uneven. I.e., we’ll forget that higher temperature variance makes the same average temperature cause more radiation (
).
Mr. Wilde’s contention that convection causes the surface to be hotter than it otherwise would be ultimately requires the impossibility that convection gives some opacity to an otherwise perfectly non-radiative, and thus perfectly transparent, gas so that the atmosphere radiates back to the surface. If he weren’t requiring the non-radiative gas to radiate, then he would be admitting that the only mechanism of energy transfer between the atmosphere and the surface is conduction.
But, if conduction is the only mechanism, then so long as the atmosphere’s average temperature at the interface exceeds the surface’s, there will be net heat flow from the atmosphere into the surface, and that flow will reduce atmospheric energy until the average temperature difference across the interface is zero: on average the surface and atmospheric interface temperatures have to be the same if the atmosphere is non-radiative. (Leif Svaalgard’s statement that air’s an insulator needn’t detain us; it doesn’t conduct well, but it conducts.)
You didn’t follow all that, did you? I didn’t think so. So you’ll believe that what Mr. Wilde says makes sense.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that we all have our innate limitations. Me, I can’t even remember my own phone number. I mean no disrespect here—and I may be wrong—but to me you appear to be among the many whose limitations include vulnerability to confusion in the face of physical-science arguments of moderate complexity.
Again, I may be wrong. But that’s the way it seems to me. So I’ve concluded that any further attempt to help you would be futile.
“But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection. ”
But it does, it must.
Follow the steps in my description and if you have a problem at any point just ask me.
Have you read it ?
“Sure, if convection is occurring, then heat is flowing in at one place and out at another, making one place hotter and the other cooler than if convection weren’t occurring. But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection.”
If it is circulating without escaping then the warmth in one place will will warm the other place too.
The other place only cools during the formation of the atmosphere. It doesn’t cool after that because the energy required is from then on taken from circulating air and not from the surface.
But the warmer circulating air is still there warming both locations the same amount for as long as the circulation continues, effectively forever.
And the extra energy cannot be radiated out because it is taken up in the next ascent INSTEAD OF cooling the surface.
So the surface must be 288k for Earth (insolation PLUS circulated warmth) with radiation to space at 255k as observed.
The fact is that convective overturning does introduce opacity to outgoing IR by tying energy up in a closed loop.
Joe Born,
Sorry, we’re all getting a little tired of this and I apologize that I didn’t link to the comment I was referring to, which is here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
I’ve admitted that I was wrong about non-GHG atmospheric conduction making the surface warmer– somewhere I said that, can’t find it now. I thought it through a bit more. So then you agree that Willis’ model planet that “proves” that NZ are wrong is itself wrong? Because the atmosphere can’t warm the surface if it doesn’t radiate?
So if you read the above-referenced comment, then yes, I agree with you. But you may find the rest of it interesting– or not. In any case, even though we’re all getting tired, I’d be interested in your response.
Don132
The atmosphere affects the surface most by reducing cooling.
Under a clear night sky with non radiative gases descending from above the surface will radiate to space in the usual way but the cold surface will pull out KE from that descending air and will not get as cold as it would have done without that extra KE.
The not as cold air then circulates around to the warm side and helps to warm it to a higher level than S-B because the warm side was ‘expecting’ the even colder air in order to remain at S-B
Leif
“Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.”
.
Complete nonsense – just what do you know about the science here?
The faint Sun paradox is easily explained by the insolation/auto-compression model.
Really, one wonders how much attention you are paying to the debate and to the science?
This so-called ‘paradox’ is fully explained in my upcoming book on climate change, here is an excerpt;
“Billions of years ago, when the Solar System was young, astronomers say that because of stellar evolution theory the Sun must have emitted about 30% less energy than it does now (Hart, 1979); yet the Earth somehow did not become a frozen ball of ice (Ueno et al., 2009).
The only logical explanation for this according to proponents of the enhanced GHE, is the level of CO₂ and other GHG in the atmosphere at the time, which kept sufficient heat in the troposphere to keep the oceans liquid, (Foukal, Fröhlich, Spruit, & Wigley, 2006; Jenkins, 2000; J. Kiehl & Dickinson, 1987).
However, as will be seen in the section on auto-compression, if the atmosphere had a greater surface pressure than 1 bar billions of years ago, then perhaps the paradox could be solved (Sorokhtin, Chilingar, Khilyuk, & Gorfunkel, 2007).
It has been suggested that the Earth’s atmosphere has generally been >1 bar, and indeed reached up to 3-5 bar in the period 2.5 – 3.5Gya (L. F. Khilyuk & Chilingar, 2006), this pressure ‘spike’ being mostly due to outgassing of CO₂.
If the gas partial pressure was high enough, this could have provided a lot of warming to the troposphere in the Hadean-Archean termination ~3.8Gya. There is evidence that the partial pressure of combined CO₂ + N₂ was high at that time, and possibly even earlier; a calculated partial pressure of N₂ alone of ~1.2 bar (L. F. Khilyuk & Chilingar, 2006) (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009) (Sorokhtin et al., 2007) has been made.”
‘The air is a very good insulator’
Bingo!
A blanket traps air in its fabric, making it likewise a good insulator.
If you wrap a blanket round a person, that person’s temperature increases. Yet, if you wrap the same blanket around a block of steel at 38 degrees C, the temperature of the steel does not increase. Why?
The answer of course is because a person has a steady, internal source of new heat while a block of steel does not. The insulating blanket causes the person’ temperature to actually increase, but all it can do for the block of steel is to slow its temperature decrease.
This easy to answer question is a reminder that the real world earth is nothing like a black body. Sometimes the earth acts like a person wrapped in a blanket and sometimes it acts like a block of steel wrapped in a blanket.
During the day, the earth acts like a person in a blanket. After dawn, the sunlight starts to heat up the surface which, for the rest of the daylight hours, becomes a steady source of new heat for the atmosphere which steadily warms it up through conduction, convection and radiation. By sun-set, the atmosphere contains a lot of heat.
At night, after the sun sets, the earth changes its behavior and starts to act like a block of steel. The sun is no longer heating the surface so it begins to cool. However, the surface cannot cool below the temperature of the air immediately above it – it has to wait until that air cools first. Hence the atmosphere slows the cooling of the earths surface, just like a blanket slows the cooling of the steel block.
So, sometimes the earth is acting like a person in a blanket and sometimes it acts like a block of steel in a blanket. It’s a lot easier to look at the earth as it really is rather than to keep comparing the earth to a black body. If you look at it as it actually is, then your experiments and measurements become easier to interpret.
For example.
Add one new molecule of man-made CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere. Actually, what you would be doing is taking a molecule of carbon out of the earths surface and combining it with a molecule of O2 from the atmosphere. The net effect in the atmosphere is one less molecule of O2 and one extra molecule of CO2. Don’t forget, the CO2 molecule has very poor eyesight. It does not know if it is day or night – or whether the earth below it is acting like a person in a blanket of a block of steel in a blanket. All it knows is its own temperature. For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit. Some of those emissions will be up and that energy will be lost to space. Think about that for a moment. One new man-made molecule of CO2 means an increase in energy loss to space. All that chaotic maelstrom of activity below the molecule continues, the amount of sunshine is the same, the extra CO2 molecule causes some extra energy loss to space. If everything else is unchanged and there is an increase in energy lost to space, this means increasing atmospheric CO2 radiation actually cools the total earth/atmosphere system. I suppose that is why it’s called a radiative gas.
It also would explain why, in the real world rather than the black body world, we observe that changes in temperature happen before changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
This is the opposite conclusion to the one people reach when they start with ‘consider the earth as a black body’. The earth is nothing like a black body.
As Leif says, ‘The air is a very good insulator’. Start from there.
At night, after the sun sets, the earth changes its behavior and starts to act like a block of steel. The sun is no longer heating the surface so it begins to cool. However, the surface cannot cool below the temperature of the air immediately above it – it has to wait until that air cools first.
The surface will cool and the air immediately above it will follow. One way to make ice in the Sahara desert is to put an insulated bucket of water out at night.
https://www.fieldstudyoftheworld.com/persian-ice-house-how-make-ice-desert/
For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit.
No the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is predominantly in the vibrational ground state so it emits no photons. If it absorbs an IR photon in the 15 micron band it will be excited to the first vibrational state and then is capable of emitting a single photon. Near the surface it is more likely to be collisionally deactivated however.
Bernard
Not completely true. If the air was a perfect thermal insulator then OK; but the ground surface has two ways of losing heat.
1. By contact with the overlying air; conduction which then causes convection air movement leading to surface replacement of the warmed air by colder air during overturn.
2. By surface radiation directly to space through the atmospheric window; solid surfaces are much better emitters of thermal radiation than gases.
It is the efficient and effective radiation from the solid ground surface through clear cloudless air that leads to the creation of night-time ground frosts in winter (as in Phil’s Sahara Desert example).
Direct to space ground surface cooling also leads to the formation of an inversion layer; where the air in direct contact with the ground is colder than the air above it. This process of surface radiative cooling is also why the weather forecasters often mention ground frost as occurring first, before the formation of air frost, on cold winter nights and also explains the presence of ice on the windscreen of your car in air temperatures above 0C.
This process of thermal radiation leaking from the solid ground directly into space is included in Trenberth’s diagram and given a value of 40 W/m2. See Stephen Wilde’s post here for further analysis of Trenberth’s work.
Phillip,
Thanks for the reply.
I assume that you do agree that the atmosphere slows the cooling of the earth’s surface at night. This would happen whatever the composition of the atmosphere … with or without CO2. As Leif says, air is a good insulator.
>>
This process of thermal radiation leaking from the solid ground directly into space is included in Trenberth’s diagram and given a value of 40 W/m2.
<<
I’ve studied KT-97 for years. I’ve even made a simple model of it. That 40 W/m^2 calculation is suspect.
I grew up just before the computer/calculator revolution. In those days we had to use trig and log tables. One of the things we were taught was how to interpolate between values. Notice this statement from KT-97:
Now this old student remembers how to interpolate. If the upper value is 99 W/m^2 and the lower number is 80 W/m^2, then the interpolated value should be around 87 W/m^2. When I point this discrepancy out, most people don’t see the problem. What KT is doing is interpolating between 99 W/m^2 and 0 W/m^2. If 0 W/m^2 is the correct lower value, then why mention 80 W/m^2?
I guess that 40 W/m^2 is the correct value, and it doesn’t matter how you get it.
Jim
Despite the quibbles about the way it functions, what you say is still true.
Because the Diurnal Temperatures say so.
Not true for H2O though as it works the opposite way, slowing the heating in the day as well as the cooling at night.
The real storers of energy in the atmosphere are N2 & O2 because they can’t radiate.
Phil,
I said:
For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit.
You said:
No the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is predominantly in the vibrational ground state so it emits no photons. If it absorbs an IR photon in the 15 micron band it will be excited to the first vibrational state and then is capable of emitting a single photon. Near the surface it is more likely to be collisionally deactivated however.
If you are correct then there is minimal downward IR from CO2 and so little to worry about. If I am correct and there are emissions, my point is that some of them are upward and escape to space which means adding CO2 cools the planet. Either way, increased CO2 is not going to be a problem.
For the ~15 µm C=O bond, there are 13 permitted vibrational energy transitions spanning 544-1064 cm-1, the most important being from the ground state (where most atmospheric CO2 molecules reside). Some of these transitions have similar energy of ~667 cm-1 and produce the large central peak at 15u. Other vibrational transitions are less prominent, but two at 618 cm-1 and 721 cm-1 are obvious in CO2 spectra. There are many transitions involving changes in bond rotation levels. These produce the many smaller IR absorption peaks to either side of each center vibrational peak. Other vibrational energy changes produce similar associated distributions of rotational energy changes. For CO2, a change in rotational level (absorption or emission) cannot be produced by photon interaction alone unless a vibrational change also occurs. However, changes in rotational energy levels can and do occur through molecular collisions.
I
Bernard
I have just found your comment. Like all good questions it is not one that is easy to answer. An answer of “well it depends”, while possibly correct, is not very satisfactory. So, please bear with me while I try and make my position as clear as possible.
In this thread we are dealing with a model scenario. The purpose of any model is to reduce the complexity to a level that maintains the key process of the system, following the rule of simplification of “thus far but no further”. Simple one-dimensional models of atmospheric profiles are not models of climate systems.
Climate is a dynamic fluid system that transports heat energy from a source region A with excess heat, to a sink region B that has a heat deficit. As with any mass transport system it must form a closed loop, else the material necessary for the dynamic flow of heat disappears and the transport mechanism ceases as the fluid carrying the heat freezes solid.
This is the first and most fundamental point about a climate system; it has a source area (region A) that is physically separated in surface location from a sink area (region B).
The second key point is that the source region A collects heat at the surface, the base of the atmosphere. On rocky planets the solid surface is both a good absorber of radiant energy and also a good thermal emitter.
Gasses are poor absorbers and emitters of radiant thermal energy, so they heat most effectively by contact with the sunlit warmed surface during the day, and cool most effectively by contact with the radiatively cooled ground surface by night.
There is an issue here: –
The solid ground cools by thermal radiation to space all the time (both day and night), but it only gains most heat during the hours of sunlight during the day.
Now the fluid transport mechanism carries the heat from the source region A to the sink region B where the heat can be lost to space from the surface by thermal radiation. The key question is where in the atmosphere’s vertical profile does this heat loss most effectively occur?
Before I address that point, let us look again at the simplest possible model planet, one that has these features:
It is a planet that has a solid surface.
It is a planet that does not rotate.
It is a planet with no atmosphere.
For this planet only one hemisphere can receive solar heat, (side A) the other side (side B) will be at a temperature of absolute zero (0 Kelvin). Well perhaps 3K if you include the cosmic background temperature, all right 36K if you include geothermal heat flux. But the point is that the average temperature of this airless world (AK + BK)/2 will be LOWER than the same planet covered by an atmosphere.
Why is this so? Well, let us add to the model an atmosphere (of whatever type) that is capable of transporting heat from the lit side A to the dark side B, and then returning it back to the lit side to form a closed dynamic heat carrying mass-transport loop. In other words, this planet now has a climate system. However, on this world with its mobile dynamic atmosphere the average global temperature rises.
This apparent paradox is due to the nature of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, far less energy is needed to raise the cold solid surface B from 0K to 100K, than is needed to raise the temperature for the warm solid surface A from 200K to 300K. So, a small horizontal energy flux by fluid atmosphere transport from the warm side A to the cold side B will deliver sufficient energy to significantly raise the temperature of site B on the unlit dark side. This rise will be more than the temperature drops at site A on the lit side, (where the solar energy is received) and the temperature only falls from 300K to 299K. Therefore, the average temperature of the planet’s total surface (A+B)/2 increases purely due to the presence of the fluid transport mechanism.
Your question is about the thermal properties of the air on our real world slowing the loss of heat from the surface. Here we come face to face with one of the most fundamental misconceptions sometimes made about the atmosphere in Earth’s climate system, that the lower atmosphere is opaque to thermal radiation. This is not a mistake made by Trenberth, he correctly identifies the presence of the atmospheric radiative thermal window. The solid ground can and does export thermal radiation directly out to space, and it does this with brutal efficiency on clear cloudless nights (particularly so on the high ice plateau of Antarctica during the dark of the Austral winter).
The presence of moist air slows surface to space heat loss, the presence of clouds also slows the process of heat loss to space, the presence of warm advected air slows the process of heat loss to space etc. But nothing can stop the planet’s surface from losing heat in the absence of a heat delivery system to slow down that loss. This heat delivery system can be the warmed radiant daytime sunlight, or warmed night-time air aloft with a given heat capacity, but the ground always cools by radiative heat loss to space whenever the air above is clear.
Yes, air slows the rate of surface cooling at night, but only because it is delivering heat to the surface, most abundantly in the form of sensible heat, and also by latent heat release during surface dew formation. The quality, quantity and mechanism of radiant heat delivery from the atmosphere back to the surface, as per Trenberth’s model, is an issue for another thread.
Joe,
Even when the system gets back to two joules in and two joules out you still have an energy store in the convecting atmosphere which constantly takes say 1 joule from the surface in one location and simultaneously returns 1 joule to the surface in another location so that the surface remains hotter than before convection started.
The only way you will get it is to go through my initial description step by step.
The fact is that when you have convection between a surface and space the surface can carry more heat than is allowed out to space. In a sense, conduction and convection introduce a degree of opacity to IR radiation even if non radiative materials are involved. That is the issue that the objectors cannot get their heads around because for them a surface at 288k must radiate to space at 288k which it does not so they have to introduce DWIR to balance the budget.
But then the budget is still unbalanced because they have ignored the thermal effect of KE released by the downward leg of vertical convective cells such as the Hadley circulation.
“There are over 1000 comments on the top post.
A lot of people are interested.
I’d say a good portion of us are still unconvinced of Willis’ argument.”
Sorry, but there is but one reason that there are over 1000 comments on this thread ….
And his name is Stephen Wilde.
He is the one ‘pushing’ a pet (and as auch a sky-dragon slaying) theory.
Just a few people remain caught up with his confusion.
With him keeping the ball rolling.
Stephen has p####d of Willis with his intransigence, as is the case with such types.
Do denizens remember a certain Doug Cotton?
Exactly.
Stephen has got himself banned from some contrarian Blogs because of this.
The deluded in search of their hearts desire by the rejection of reality.
Get over it please.
Would you expect NWP models to work if the GHE theory did not work.
Cue more delusion.
Anthony,
Then just address my errors, please, in the comment you reference. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
I repeat, I have no horse in this race other than that so far as I can see right now, NZ are basically correct. And yes, overall I’m defending Stephen, at this point.
One problem is that we jump all over the place when the task at hand was simply to address Willis’ hypothetical model, which supposedly refutes NZ. With focus and civility we could have done it.
Don132
Amthony, my full refutation has not appeared so let me just say that this thread id 1100 posts long because no objector has addressed my description stage by stage in sequence.
Instead, they have all gone off in irrelevant and sometimes bizarre tangents.
If there is a flaw in my description it could have been spotted and pointed out and disposed of within 50 posts.
All this confusion is evidence that that cannot be done.
no objector has addressed my description stage by stage in sequence.
I did so as below which you totally failed to address.
“On an airless body such as the moon the heat transfer equation for a location (on the equator for example) is as follows:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4
where Cs is the effective heat capacity of the surface, Ts is the surface temperature, Ri(t) is the time dependent insolation and -εσTs^4 is the radiational heat loss term.
At dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases. Ri(t) follows a cos curve, maximizing when the sun is at ‘noon’, the temperature follows with a slight lag and on the moon at dusk is ~30K above the dawn temperature.
Add a IR transparent atmosphere and the system’s governed by the following equations:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4 – kh(Ts-Ta) (1)
CadTa/dt = kh(Ts-Ta) (2)
As before, at dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases, but not as fast as before because of the the additional conduction term. That conduction causes the air temperature, Ta, to increase as indicated by equation 2 with a lag maximizing slightly later than the surface at a slightly lower temperature. After dusk Ri(t) becomes zero and Ts cools due to radiation heat transfer as in the previous case, however the surface cools more slowly as Ta is higher than Ts. The air near the surface will also cool as indicated by equation 2. To accurately model the system you would need more equations for additional levels of the atmosphere, such as:
CadTa1/dt = kh(Ts-Ta1) – kh(Ta1-Ta2) (2)
CadTa2/dt = kh(Ta1-Ta2) (3)
Etc.”
Is the basic Zeller-Nikolov notion easily testable by a simple experiment? Two identical vessels containing nitrogen gas, receiving identical levels of radiation. One vessel has a greater density of gas. If the notion is true then one vessel will get hotter.
Up above someone mentioned a cylinder of pressurised gas having the same amount of snow on it as everything else in his garden. So I think we have an indication of how the experiment would go.
PJF:” Is the basic Zeller-Nikolov notion easily testable by a simple experiment? Two identical vessels containing nitrogen gas, receiving identical levels of radiation. One vessel has a greater density of gas. If the notion is true then one vessel will get hotter.
“Up above someone mentioned a cylinder of pressurized gas having the same amount of snow on it as everything else in his garden. So I think we have an indication of how the experiment would go.”
Pressurized gas in the garden: is this cylinder insulated? If not, then how do we expect the energy not to dissipate to the atmosphere?
If we have two identical vessels with nitrogen gas and one is denser and they both receive the same amount of heat, then the vessel with the denser gas will get hotter. It has to be so. Why? Because the molecules of the gases in both vessels receive the same amount of energy, therefore the kinetic energy of molecules is the same! So the answer should be evident but I fear it’s not, so the next step would be to consider what the definition of “temperature” is for a volume of gas.
” … temperature has to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules, and if the molecules act like independent point masses, then we could define temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules, the so-called “kinetic temperature”.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper.html#c1
and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper2.html#c1 “For monoatomic gases acting like point masses, a higher temperature simply implies higher average kinetic energy.”
In following with the ideal gas law, if you increase the density of a gas and all else is equal, then the temperature of the gas must go up because there are more molecules per volume and therefore the average kinetic energy is higher.
Try this: heat a vessel with only three molecules of nitrogen in it. How hot do you think the nitrogen gas in the vessel will be? The temperature of a gas (to be distinguished from the “temperature” of the molecules within the gas) depends a great deal on its density.
Don132
I used to do bronze casting and used bottled gas. As the gas ran low I had to put the whole bottle in a bath of boiling water heated by another source to keep the pressure up. So the sun is the ‘other’ source. The furnace is the radiation to space, and the bath of hot water the planet/atmosphere conduction interface. However could I have kind of levitated the foundry up into the stratosphere the rise in altitude would have had the same effect as adding more energy by conduction – at least I would imagine? So relative pressure and energy are interrelated in this system.
I don’t know whether this analogy helps?
Martin,
“I used to do bronze casting and used bottled gas. As the gas ran low I had to put the whole bottle in a bath of boiling water heated by another source to keep the pressure up.”
It makes sense the pressure in your bottle would go down since heat is radiated to the atmosphere, and what this means at the molecular level is that the speed of the molecules in the bottle slows. When you put the bottle in boiling water the speed of the molecules increases through conduction with the boiling water.
“…could I have kind of levitated the foundry up into the stratosphere the rise in altitude would have had the same effect as adding more energy by conduction.” Unfortunately, no. The stratosphere is cold so there’s no heat to conduct. Even getting to the thermosphere, which is “hot,” wouldn’t help, since even though the molecules there are moving fast, there are too few of them to make the thermosphere actually hot.
You’d have to add heat to speed up the molecules, or else more pressure to make the gas denser.
Don132
Martin, it looks clear enough as an analogy to me so I can see that you can understand the principle. Was it you who gave a fully charged and remaining on charge battery previously ? That was also a good analogy.
Unfortunately, we cannot get past the obsession of the radiative theorists that a surface at 288k must radiate to space at 288k despite the intervention of a conducting and convecting non radiative atmosphere.
I wouldn’t mind so much if they engaged properly with my step by step description of the purely mechanical process but they just will not.
If they can find a flaw in it then so be it. I would accept that. But I know there isn’t one.
Hold on a second, Stephen. How would raising the bottle to the stratosphere increase its temperature?
Don132
I didn’t mean to imply that. Your answer to that is correct. I was only considering that the energy conducted back in from boiling water could keep the pressure up by cancelling out the conductive losses that would otherwise have occurred.
“I wouldn’t mind so much if they engaged properly with my step by step description of the purely mechanical process but they just will not.
If they can find a flaw in it then so be it. I would accept that. But I know there isn’t one”
Says it all.
If we have two identical vessels with nitrogen gas and one is denser and they both receive the same amount of heat, then the vessel with the denser gas will get hotter. It has to be so.
That’s a clear claim and thus it would be interesting to see a practical experiment to demonstrate whether the claim is accurate or not. Easy enough to do, too, for science types.
Pressurized gas in the garden: is this cylinder insulated? If not, then how do we expect the energy not to dissipate to the atmosphere?
Why should we worry about that? The energy dissipation (which in the above scenario would melt the overlying snow more than that on surrounding objects) would clearly indicate the extra heat from the extra density of the gas in the cylinder.
PJF,
Undoubtedly the warm cylinder in the garden will melt the snow before it cools. If you pressurize it, it MUST heat up; no one disagrees with that.
A denser gas is warmer than a less dense gas, all else equal. This is by the gas laws, and it’s also shown by the lapse rate.
No one disagrees that the gas gets hot by the action of pressurising it. The question is whether the gas is above ambient temperature once that energy of pressurisation has dissipated.
The anecdotal evidence above (same amount of snow on pressurised cylinder as on everything else in the same environment) would suggest that the pressurised gas is at the same temperature as everything else.
Well if you read my step by step description you will see that the energy does not get dissipated due to the ongoing cycle of further decompression in rising columns and renewed compression in falling columns.
The energy stored in the atmosphere is constantly refreshed by a ‘rolling over’ process.
Which is how it heats the surface above S-B.
PJF: “No one disagrees that the gas gets hot by the action of pressurising it. The question is whether the gas is above ambient temperature once that energy of pressurisation has dissipated.”
There’s no question about it, PJF: once the heat from the pressurized container is dissipated, the container equalizes with ambient temperature.
Not sure what you’re trying to say with all this. Are you assuming that a pressurized atmosphere works the same way?
So let me explain it this way. In the container, when the gas is pressurized the molecules are packed in tighter and therefore, according to the gas laws, the gas heats up and warms the sides of the container. But once the container is left, the container radiates/conducts energy and the gas molecules conduct with the slower-moving molecules and thereby cool. The gas will not cool if it’s left in an environment that’s the same temperature as the gas. This is obvious.
In an atmosphere, when there’s “x” amount of pressure at the surface, that means that the molecules are packed in according to “x” amount of pressure. In Willis’ imaginary planet (to keep things simple) where does the energy dissipate to? It’s non-radiative, so it doesn’t radiate. It’s conducting with a surface whose molecules have exactly the same amount of kinetic energy as the atmosphere, so there’s no conductive heat transfer there. All of the molecules of the atmosphere have exactly the same amount of kinetic energy, so again no heat transfer. Despite this, by definition of the temperature for a gas, the upper atmosphere must be cooler than the lower atmosphere. Also, following the basic logic of the gas laws, if the atmospheric pressure is high enough, then the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface (with no GHG.) More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature, EVEN IF all the gas molecules are exactly the same temperature (have the same kinetic energy, or speed.) Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.
Unless I’ve made some errors that no doubt will be pointed out, it really is fairly simple.
Don132
More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?
Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.
The gas has a temperature. It will radiate. Slightly less than half the radiation will reach the surface.
PJF:
‘More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…’
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?
‘Since the gas doesn’t radiate to the surface, it can’t warm the surface.’
The gas has a temperature. It will radiate. Slightly less than half the radiation will reach the surface.
Me:
PJF, I believe I’ve explained how the cylinder cools. I trust that no one but you disagrees with the basic physics.
Without going back and reading I believe “the gas” you refer to is the atmosphere. It radiates, yes. It doesn’t radiate in IR, by definition, and so can’t warm the surface. If we want to maintain that the gas radiation increases the kinetic energy of the surface and thereby warms the surface, then we are back to the argument that the planet’s atmosphere absorbs energy from the surface, and that energy is part of “energy in” so if it contributes to “energy out” then that’s no violation of any law.
Don132
PJF:
“More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…
Then why isn’t our gas cylinder in the garden warmer than its surroundings?”
Because all else isn’t held equal.
Don132
I believe I’ve explained how the cylinder cools.
Indeed, but then you contradicted it again with: “More packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy means higher gas temperature…”
I trust that no one but you disagrees with the basic physics.
Apparently you do.
It doesn’t radiate in IR, by definition, and so can’t warm the surface.
Any radiation absorbed by a surface will warm it.
“All else equal.”
Don132
Because all else isn’t held equal.
Let’s assume everything in the garden is under the same conditions – i.e. being warmed by the same level of radiation. Now imagine two identical gas cylinders, one holding gas at 20 bar, the other at 200 bar. Both have lost the heat added during pressurisation and have been in the garden for days.
Are they both at the same temperature? If they are, what difference does having “more packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy” actually make to temperature?
More kinetic energy in a smaller volume = higher temperature.
The Gas Laws.
Sorry, I rushed that.
Normally, if one has more molecules in a given volume there will be a higher temperature due to there being more total kinetic energy within the available volume.
In your example, the surface area of both cylinders would be the same which means that both are absorbing the same energy so I would expect the same temperature for the molecules inside. The pressure difference would remain, though.
Not really a good analogy for a convecting atmosphere due to the lack of expansion and contraction.
PJF: “Let’s assume everything in the garden is under the same conditions – i.e. being warmed by the same level of radiation. Now imagine two identical gas cylinders, one holding gas at 20 bar, the other at 200 bar. Both have lost the heat added during pressurisation and have been in the garden for days.
Are they both at the same temperature? If they are, what difference does having “more packed-in molecules with the same kinetic energy” actually make to temperature?”
If the containers are the same size, then the one under more pressure would have had to have more molecules of gas added to it. When it cools to ambient temperature it would have the same temperature as the surroundings but each molecule would have less kinetic energy than the 20 mb container, otherwise the temperature of the gas in the 200 mb container would be higher than ambient temperature. So all things are not equal.
The 200 mb container has more heat in the form of kinetic energy to lose.
It’s the ideal gas law.
But thanks, I had to think about that one.
Does anyone else want to weigh in on this so we don’t go around and around?
Don132
Yes, that was a tricky one relating to the Gas Laws but not really helpful in the current context. Good brain exercise, though.
If the containers are the same size, then the one under more pressure would have had to have more molecules of gas added to it. When it cools to ambient temperature it would have the same temperature as the surroundings but each molecule would have less kinetic energy than the 20 mb container, otherwise the temperature of the gas in the 200 mb container would be higher than ambient temperature.
No.
The kinetic energy of a gas molecule is directly proportional to its temperature, and is expressed as 1.5 (k)(T), where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the temperature of the gas.
So, both cylinders being the same temperature, the kinetic energy of each molecule is the same in both cylinders. Thus the whole of the gas in the cylinder with more gas has higher overall kinetic energy. This is exhibited not by a higher temperature but by the greater pressure exerted by the gas on the inside of the cylinder.
PJF,
You are correct. I am wrong.
I’m too tired of all this to figure out the implications, and I really do need to attend to other things
Thanks for setting me straight.
Don132
To summarise the present state of play:
Wiliis now accepts that the formation of an atmosphere draws energy from the surface that would otherwise have escaped to space. If that is true in the formation then it is also true that maintaining the atmosphere requires more energy at the surface than is predicted from the S-B equation. I have asked Willis to proceed to step 2 of my description but he has not yet done so.
Leif has kindly produced evidence that the outer, convecting layers of the sun are hotter than the radiation layers beneath but refuses to acknowledge that the delay in energy transmission created by convective overturning is the cause.
Both of them resort to abuse when pressed on the logic.
Stephen Wilde January 6, 2019 at 1:36 am
Don’t pretend to read my mind. You have no clue what I think about your babbling nonsense.
To summarize the current state of play. You called me a cheat and a liar. After that, I couldn’t care less about “point 2 of your description” or whatever kind of nonsense it might contain. I don’t have any truck with someone who calls me a liar.
I did not “resort to abuse when pressed on the logic”. I called you out as a slimy scumball for accusing an honest man of cheating and lying without a scrap of evidence.
Now you are trying to turn that around to make me the bad guy? Piss off. You are one sick puppy, trying to twist a scientific discussion in this manner.
I’m done with you. Go insult someone else, and don’t make any claims involving me.
w.
Holy crap Willis you sure know how to elevate the conversation!
Personally I think that Stephen is a bit convoluted in his expression. That doesn’t make him wrong, and I don’t see how he has outright called you a cheat and a liar, whereas you come up with “slimy scumball.”
So we descend into insults after all?
We have disagreements. We’re trying to resolve them as civilly as we can. When Anthony said that the conversation on this subject usually ends up shouting, look who’s throwing the first punches.
So what do you expect Stephen to do now? Put up with you clear and un-called for insults? Way to go.
Don132
So now we can close comments and leave things ending exactly as Anthony predicted!
I can’t believe it. This site needs lessons in civility and I thought we were doing pretty good, all things considered.
Don132
…and I don’t see how he has outright called you a cheat and a liar, whereas you come up with “slimy scumball.”
“Loaded the dice” = cheat
“Conceal the truth” = liar
That’s downright outright.
I’m not a regular here but the difference between rough-and-tumble and totally-unacceptable is clear as day.
PJF
Loading the dice means aiming for a predetermined outcome. Eliminating convection from a model which is intended to replicate a scenario that relies on convection is certainly that.
Whether or not that is cheating depends on intent. I did not assert that he did cheat, I simply left it open as a prima facie possibility.
Concealing the truth is the inevitable consequence of what Willis did. Again, it could be deliberate or not.
It is, however, a fact that Willis is pretty astute so one would be entitled to be suspicious and suspicion is all I expressed.
The proper response from Willis, to negate all suspicion, would be for him to explain clearly why he chose to remove the parameter of uneven surface heating.
Instead, he lost his temper which raises further suspicion.
So, no, I do not accept that I outright called him a cheat and a liar but I did indirectly point out that his conduct had left him open to that allegation.
“‘Loaded the dice’= cheat
‘Conceal the truth’ = liar
“That’s downright outright. ”
Agree that Stephen should refrain from this as well, but from that to “slimy scumball” is quite a leap.
Let me note that Willis hasn’t answered one single objection to his hypothetical planet that I’ve raised– not one. In particular it seems to me that this comment refutes his imaginary planet model and also explains the basic physics of the pressure model, laid out in simple logic. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836 I admit that with time constraints I haven’t thought about Joe Born’s response to that carefully, but it seems to me that his comment is a reiteration of why the greenhouse theory must be correct, not a direct refutation of the mechanisms I’ve laid out. The issue is that if both theories account for the same phenomenon to the same degree, then both can’t be correct. So if we’d focus on the basic argument I laid out we might get somewhere. I’ll admit if I’m wrong, honest! But so far a lot of talking at cross-purposes is going on, with Willis content to ignore some objections.
Don132
Instead, he lost his temper which raises further suspicion.
Me, I’d have just withdrawn the remarks and apologised for making them. But you still want to go there with bizarre rationalisations.
There’s a difference between “logic” and “weasel”.
PJF,
You haven’t read my response to his first tirade. I did accept his denial of the necessary intent.
Nor have you noted that upthread he had previously implied that I was knowingly fooling people i.e he was calling me a cheat / charlatan.
DJF
My words to Willis were:
“Then I accept that you did not do it deliberately “
Let me add that my demonstration here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836 shows three main things:
1. An atmosphere without GHGs does not radiate the surface (obvious.)
2. Whatever the temperature of the atmosphere, if that temperature is due to conductive interactions with the planet’s surface, then the molecules of the atmosphere can never have more kinetic energy than the molecules of the surface.
3. Nevertheless, since a denser gas holds more heat, an atmosphere can be dense enough to be warmer than the surface. No compressive heating happens; this is simply how the temperature of a gas is defined, and this is distinct from the temperature of the molecules within the gas. This follows directly from the ideal gas law and is the basis of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory.
I suspect that people are confused about point three (?) and are confused about the temperature of a molecule versus the temperature of a gas. An isothermal atmosphere does not mean that the atmosphere is the same temperature from top to bottom, even if all the molecules are exactly the same temperature. We’re using “temperature” in two different ways, and these get confused.
This proves that the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory makes sense and isn’t quite as silly as everyone says.
So refute, politely and civilly, so we can all learn.
Don132
1 Agreed
2 You should refer to total energy not kinetic energy. The molecules at the top of atmosphere have the same total energy as the ones at the bottom but as one increases height kinetic energy becomes potential energy. The latter is not heat and does not radiate. The ones lower down must have more kinetic energy in order to support the greater weight of atmospheric mass above them.
3 There is a constant loop of decompression in rising air and compression in falling air.
Apart from that an isothermal atmosphere by definition has the same temperature top to bottom. We are not using temperature two different ways since temperature simply represents kinetic energy. We, or rather you, are not yet distinguishing between kinetic energy which is heat and does not radiate and potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.
It is the returning KE from PE in falling air that is then recirculating which is heating the surface above S-B.
Stephen! Work with me here!
I wish you’d stop talking so much about KE versus PE because frankly I think it’s confusing the issue. This is my opinion.
“Apart from that an isothermal atmosphere by definition has the same temperature top to bottom. We are not using temperature two different ways since temperature simply represents kinetic energy.”
Oh yes, we are using temperature two different ways. Given the same kinetic energy (“temperature”) of molecules, what’s the “temperature” of a volume of gas with one molecule in it? How about the “temperature” of same volume of gas with a trillion molecules in it? All molecules have the same kinetic energy.
Why is the thermosphere actually cold, if you stick your hand in it?
Don132
Sadly, the KE PE exchange is critical.
Temperature does indeed depend on the number of molecules in a given space so if you expand the space whilst leaving the number of molecules the same then the temperature drops.
Why does it drop?
It drops because KE is replaced by PE but the total amount of energy within the volume (PE plus KE) stays the same.
So you are talking about two different types of energy influencing temperature and not two types of temperature.
You already know that the thermosphere would feel cold despite the high temperature of molecules because they are so widely spaced. But their energy content is huge because they also have an enormous amount of potential energy being so far off the surface. Its just that the potential energy part doesn’t register as heat.
If you brought a thermosphere molecule down to the surface adding together their potential energy and their kinetic energy from direct solar heating they would become incredibly hot.
So, I think you are straying away from simplicity and maybe I’m not helping.
But you have to realise that the PE KE energy exchange combined with the up and down motion is what simplifies the issues so that I could produce my very straightforward description.
Stephen, I think you can prove that the basic idea of the mass atmosphere effect is sound by simply considering conduction and atmospheric density. All you need to prove is that a non-GHG atmosphere can indeed be warmer than the surface, and radiation balance can be maintained. That’s it! People are stuck on that. And, Willis’ model is dead wrong, which I think I’ve demonstrated directly. Willis refuses to address anything I’ve said. Maybe I’m lower than “slimy scumball”? In any case no one has yet addressed the refutation I posted, which fully supports your position in a fairly simple manner.
This is so just by considering the ideal gas law, the nature of conduction, and being careful to distinguish between the temperature of individual molecules versus the temperature of the gas that contains those molecules. IMHO you’re trying to explain the details of your theory when people are stuck on square one. At this point we only need to show that the theory isn’t so silly as Watts and Willis believe.
Seriously, I have other things to do (don’t we all?) and much as I like following along, my time in the next day or so may be limited. By then comments might be closed. But, I’ll scan for comments and address what I can.
Don132
We are both getting tired but I agree essentially.
However that should be that a non GHG atmosphere can produce a surface warmer than S-B and radiation balance can be maintained.
Objectors are indeed stuck on square one because they believe it ‘must’ be wrong. It goes against all they have been taught and messes with their mental picture of atmospheric processes. Thus they set off at increasingly bizarre tangents and we end up discussing a vast variety of details that are dependent on square one so that there are constant cross purposes. Then they get abusive as Anthony anticipated.
All they need to do is say ‘what if ?’ and follow the steps in my description.
They just won’t.
Stephen:
“Objectors are indeed stuck on square one because they believe it ‘must’ be wrong. ”
I believe I’ve laid out an irrefutable argument here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
No one has yet responded directly to that fairly simple argument, which I believe establishes the validity of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes model. Joe Born refuted by arguing for the greenhouse theory, which is fine because we all expect the greenhouse theory to be self-consistent, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is necessarily correct. If we have two theories that account for planetary temperature above S-B, then only one can be right– or, as some have said, it might be a combination of the two. But at this point I’m only interested in establishing that Willis’ refutation of NZ is wrong, and that the NZ/Wilde/Holmes model is sound and makes sense.
Don132
PJF January 6, 2019 at 4:05 am
Thanks, PJF. I knew that someone was going to say “but … but … he never called you that”, so I’m glad that it is as clear to you as it was to me.
w.
Stephen Wilde January 6, 2019 at 4:29 am
Loading a set of dice is a quintessential example of cheating. Playing with dice that you had loaded would get you shot in the old West, and for good reason. It means secretly changing the game so that you would win … in other words, cheating.
Stephen, you called me a cheat and a liar. At least have the balls to either stand behind your accusations or retract and apologize for them. Trying to wriggle out from what you obviously said is unseemly and pusillanimous.
w.
I withdrew the implication (not an allegation).
Please explain why you did choose those parameters.
An apology is not required because the suspicion was reasonable but if you can give a sound reason I will express regret for the suspicion.
Provided you also withdraw your allegation upthread that I was ‘fooling’ contributors to this site.
Or we can both just move on and you can address what happens next after the atmosphere draws energy from the surface rather than it radiating out to space.
If you stay civil then I will too.
you didn’t take on board the message about the Israeli scientist who won the noble prize then Willis?
Richard, I assume you mean the Nobel Prize, but other than that I have no clue who or what you are talking about. Some context here would help.
w.
Leif has kindly produced evidence that the outer, convecting layers of the sun are hotter than the radiation layers beneath
No, this is not true [as usual Stephen is a bit economical with the truth; perhaps hoping that nobody will notice].
Here is the run of temperature in the solar interior:
It is the very rapid change in temperature in the our layers that cause them to convect.
That is not the chart I referred to. I think it was on page 8 of your link or thereabouts.
Kindly post the correct one.
I’m not good enough with WordPress to post it myself.
That is not the chart I referred to
You wondered what the temperature was in the interior of the Sun. I provided you with a link
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4020/lecture01_solar_interior.pdf
in which the chart appears. You said that you looked at it [is that also not true?].
In any event, that is what the run of temperature actually is:
A very rapid decrease as one goes outwards. It is this decrease that cause the convection.
The energy fluxes at the bottom and at the top of the convection zone are the same, contrary to your ‘prediction’. Guess what that does to your ideas?
The chart on page 8 is completely different. Please post it and explain the difference.
Kindly retract your personal allegations.
The chart on page 8 is completely different.
That slide does not show the temperature, but the temperature gradient.
The ability to read is a useful thing to have, but it should be applied, don’t you think?
So, again: the facts contradict your theory.
So the temperature gradient increases when one enters the convective zone but declines when one gets above it?
Well that seems to accord with the view that convection heats things up.
But, if the temperature doesn’t change then something else peculiar to a star is offsetting it and that certainly does not apply for a planet.
So, the only error in my statement is that I should have said that the temperature gradient changes due to convection.
You owe me an apology.
Well that seems to accord with the view that convection heats things up.
Nonsense, it shows that the matter has become opaque and that energy is just carried along with the flow. With the same energy exiting at the top as entering at the bottom.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory.
and no need to apologise for you just being yourself.
But, if the temperature doesn’t change then something else peculiar to a star is offsetting it and that certainly does not apply for a planet.
Again, you are not paying attention. The whole point is that the temperature begins to fall precipitously because the matter in the convection zone is now opaque, which is what causes convection to begin. Note that the gradient is now the adiabatic one showing that there is no exchange of energy with the ambient atmosphere.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory, big time.
You now have the explanation for my misinterpretation of the solar charts which precludes dishonesty on my part so you should apologise.
What does come out of this is that the interior of stars is not a suitable comparator for a planet with an atmosphere which is what I said to you at the very beginning but you dissented so we had to go off on this irrrelevant tangent.
Someone in your position should know perfectly well the comparison is not suitable.
If you really do have a problem with my description then you are welcome to run through the steps in sequence and discuss them with me.
If you just want to obstruct and distract then please go away.
You now have the explanation for my misinterpretation of the solar charts
Which is due to either wishful thinking or deceptive practice. What was it?
The point is that the convection is not a PE/KE cycle as you consider to be so critical.
It is hard to go through your ‘steps’ as most of them are ‘not even wrong’.
But it is really not necessary as Willis has shown [as noted by Roy].
So, the only error in my statement is that I should have said that the temperature gradient changes due to convection.
Again, you have it backwards. It is the changing gradient [due to opacity] that creates the convection.
Your understanding of the physics of convection appears to be nil.
In suns, yes.
On plants, no.
Go away.
In suns, yes.
On planets, no.
Convection is a universal phenomenon and the physics of it is the same everywhere in the known Universe.
Regardless of your lack of understanding of it.
Works differently in different situations as you really should know.
I ought to ignore you but every comment of yours is flawed one way or another.
I still want your apology but I suppose that is a forlorn hope.
I respect your solar knowledge but not your wider knowledge.
Works differently in different situations as you really should know.
No, a gas molecule acts locally and has no ‘awareness’ of being in a different condition.
Again: the facts contradicts your ‘theory’.
That’s where you are going wrong then.
The principles are the same but the outcome is different. The molecule doesn’t need to ‘know’ anything.
In the sun there is little change in the temperature up through a convective cell but there is a change in the temperature gradient.
On a planet there is a significant reduction in temperature with height up through the convective cell and the gradient is steady on average as per the lapse rate.
But this is all off topic.
In the sun there is little change in the temperature up through a convective cell but there is a change in the temperature gradient. On a planet there is a significant reduction in temperature with height up through the convective cell and the gradient is steady on average as per the lapse rate.
Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.
In the sun, the gradient is constant [at the adiabatic rate: chart on page 8] but the temperature changes dramatically [factor of more than a hundred].
Just as on your planet.
So, again: the facts contradicts your theory.
One wonders how people with at least a modicum of intellectual capacity can cling to the nonsense you are peddling. One possible explanation might be their opposition to the effect of CO2 which causes them to grasp for straws, even nonsensical ones.
Leif Svalgaard January 6, 2019 at 11:18 am to Stephen Wilde
Leif, that fits with my rule of thumb, which states:
w.
Chart on page 8 shows a large increase in the gradient upon reaching the convection zone, it stays stable most of the way up and then drops substantially at the top of the zone.
The earlier chart shows a curving decline in temperature through the convection zone that is not comparable to the straight line of the lapse rate in the troposphere.
They are not comparable.
Chart on page 8 shows a large increase in the gradient upon reaching the convection zone, it stays stable most of the way up and then drops substantially at the top of the zone.
You are ranting. It is the gradient that controls the convection zone. At the very bottom and top one would expect [as observed] a transitional effect.
the straight line of the lapse rate in the troposphere.
In the Sun the lapse rate is just the adiabatic one, as in the troposphere.
So very comparable.
Here you can learn more about lapse rates:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate
This is all off topic. Time to stop.
If you have anything to say about my description then add your comment or query at the bottom of the thread.
Or maybe ask Anthony to give you a fresh thread explaining why my description is rubbish.
But you don’t even need to do that. Just go through it and tell me what my error is, which you could have done long ago.
tell me what my error is
I have done that to just about every comment you have made. Pointed out to you that it was erroneous and showed no understanding of the physics. Pointed out that every time you claimed that ‘things were just as I said’ you were wrong. Every ‘prediction’ made was off. Do we really need more of this? The Dunning-Kruger effect argues that we do not.
You have made no comment on my description of the convective overturning cycle on a planet.
Please feel free to add one at the bottom of this thread.
You have made no comment on my description of the convective overturning cycle on a planet
Because it is flawed and not worth it. Your problem is that it is based on wrong physics [e.g. the need for a hard solid surface, and lifting the initial atmosphere some 4 billion years ago of the frozen ground, etc, too many more even to mention]. If the basis is wrong, what follows from it is garbage.
Planets, not plants of course.
Planets, not plants of course.
Why not plants? With your superior understanding of physics, you should be able to explain why ‘not plants’.
We’ll monitor your comments to see if you try to evade this important question.
🙂
I like you when you are humorous. Try it more often in place of acid asides (and sometimes libel).
I like you when you are humorous
Yet another misrepresentation. I was not humorous, but deadly serious.
Now, man up to the challenge or put up.
Plants and convection = where to start ?
If you were indeed serious then I’ m sorry for you.
Plants and convection = where to start ?
Hey, you are the expert.
How about staring with the difference in convection above the Amazon rain forest [lots of plants] and the Saharan desert [no plants]?
Off topic, start a new thread and I’ll contribute.
Off topic, start a new thread and I’ll contribute.
Very much on topic as it would test your ‘understanding’ of convection [which has caused this thread to balloon] . So, you acknowledge that your ‘plants’ was not so silly after all..
For the benefit of those who still think that the radiative properties of CO2 can cause anomalous warming anywhere;
The fact is that the Ideal Gas Law or its derivatives (such as the molar mass version of the ideal gas law) does not care about the chemical composition of a gas.
This means that there are no ‘special’ gases which exist that can cause an anomalous change in any of the three gas parameters which we know form temperature.
This is also clear from measurements in the solar system, which prove no anomalous changes are taking place, no matter what the concentration of GHG is.
Example;
Earth has 2.5% GHG, Venus has 96.5% GHG.
Yet there is no anomalous changes to the main gas parameters on Venus due to this massive difference in the atmospheric GHG content – and so there aren’t on Earth either.
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Tv=∜1.91 x Te
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.
Thus proving that there are no anomalous changes in pressure or density caused by the so-called ‘greenhouse’ properties of CO2, because there is no anomalous temperature change.
Game Over.
Correct.
And now I have provided a description of the non radiative mechanical processes involved which no obbjector seems prepared to follow through on a step by step basis.
Stephen
On a personal note, I love your beautiful pictures of Ness Gardens, Parkgate shore and the Dee Marshes through the seasons at your website. They have made me homesick for the Wirral.
Philip
Thanks Philip. Didn’t realise you had Wirral connections.
Good to note that the work on my site is being read by someone 🙂
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.
A minor detail you omitted being the different albedos of the two planets, Earth 0.31, Venus 0.76!
Phil.. a useful read:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
the paper:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
The NZ table 1 includes albedos:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
Phil, after a lot of work, we have found that albedo is an effect of atmospheric/planetary physics, not a causative agent in the energy balance. For me, it began while observing the venusian data….. Brett
“Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 1.91 is 1.176
288 x 1.176 = 339K
This is the exact measured temperature in the Venusian atmosphere at 1atm.”
For me, years ago, this fact opened my mind to the radiative model being wrong. NZ used classical thermodynamics and parameterized it to explain surface temperatures.
In a similar manner, Einstein started with the fact that c was constant, when a doppler effect was expected. Using this fact, he produced his famous relativity equations.
Now we have the fact of Venus(above) staring at us. That is the start point. Any model that cannot derive that fact, is wrong. The radiative model fails. It is wrong. The ATE model works, and nothing W said or anyone else has said has refuted that fact.
Does anyone disagree? Please.. let the brilliant physicists from around the world provide proof that their models replicate the Venus facts.. I am all ears.
“Does anyone disagree? Please.. let the brilliant physicists from around the world provide proof that their models replicate the Venus facts.. I am all ears.”
Yes, science does.
You could try going elsewhere to find it.
A basic Google Scholar search fimds…..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA085iA13p08223
Full paper here ….
https://moscow.sci-hub.tw/2040/dafb93d1bba0975f56b8aa26390fe10d/pollack1980.pdf
“We find that the observed surface temperature and lapse rate structure of the lower atmosphere can be reproduced quite closely with a greenhouse model that contains the water vapor abundance reported by the Venera spectrophotometer experiment. Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus’ high surface temperature. The prime sources of infrared opacity are, in order of importance, CO2, H2O, cloud particles, and SO2, with CO and HCl playing very minor roles.”
Anthony,
It has already been noted that the greenhouse effect at the surface can be either radiative or mass induced but not both so that rather rather begs the question under discussion here.
However, the indispuable fact is that radiative models have no input for KE recovered from PE in descending air which is why they (incorrectly in my view) need to propose a thermal effect from back radiation.
The measurements at 1 bar pressure within the Venusian atmosphere however are consistent with the mass induced model but not the radiative model.
“Quite closely” is not close, as compared to NK. (predicted 738.8 actual 737.2). They get: “With nominal choices of other model parameters and the altered water vapor profile, we obtained a surface temperature that was almost 100K warmer than the observed value and a stability structure that was inconsistent with the observed one (cf. Figure 3b).
Further, because they cannot think of another model: “Thus on almost a priori grounds, it would appear that the greenhouse effect is the only viable mechanism for achieving the high surface temperature on Venus. ”
So.. not even close is my conclusion, but since it was a first cut from Dec 1980, that should be no surprise.
Any more “science”?
I seem to remember a certain Tony Heller quoting the Venus profile as the disproof for CAGW on this very forum many years ago before you know who banned him.
Heller was one of several.
My only fresh contribution is a description of the mechanical processes involved and a willingness to endure unlimited abuse on blog sites.
I have to say that Anthony has been very fair to me thus far but I have to be careful.
It was around this time.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/tamino-vs-goddard.html
Interestingly it looks like the original post has been “lost”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/ Using PV=nRT
Found it
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Recent-Evolution-of-Climate-on-Venus-Bullock-Grinspoon/286e505996f29cd883290ae01cc985c069171523/figure/1
http://funkyscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Bullock-and-Grinspoon-2001.pdf
More science for you to naysay.
Both Hansen and Houghton thought that it was the GHE of CO2 which makes Venus hot; and to this day, NASA say the same thing on its website.
This is total nonsense.
The explanation is far too long to post here, but the five salient points are as follows;
1) The first question that might be asked is; can a highly compressed and super-heated super-critical fluid that is more like an ocean than a gas, still possess the greenhouse properties of an ordinary atmospheric gas? This seems to be unlikely. However, it is true that fermions, (of which CO₂ is made) when highly compressed, increase the width of their absorption/emission bands, (because the Pauli Exclusion Principle (Pauli, 1988) prevents fermions from being in the same state and in the same place.) Whether this factor has affected the surface super-critical fluid enough to create a gas-like greenhouse effect is unknown at present.
2) A second problem with regard to the greenhouse effect claim for Venus is that the atmosphere is very thick and is optically opaque – more like a thick soup than transparent like the Earth’s atmosphere is. Measurements from the surface of Venus show that no direct solar insolation (Moroz et al., 1985) actually makes it to the surface of Venus to warm the surface for the infra-red radiation to be available to be captured in any possible atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, direct insolation can be neglected below a height of 60km, as all solar radiation below that level is ‘scattered’ by the thick atmosphere. The flux of this scattered solar insolation was measured on the surface by six separate landers, and appears to be very low (Moroz et al., 1985), averaging <<10% of the 2,644 W/m² TOA insolation flux. In contrast, Earth receives much more at 12% of its TOA insolation directly to the surface (161 W/m² of 1,366 W/m²) (Trenberth et al., 2009) and much more if scattered, atmospheric and back-radiation are counted.
3) Third, Venus has a very slow rotation period, which makes the Venusian ‘night’ ~58 Earth-days long (Landis et al., 2011). During this long night, measurements have been taken of the atmospheric and the surface temperatures, and they remain basically the same all through the long night just as they are during the long 58-day Venusian ‘day’. The surface cools only very slightly from ~737K to ~732K during this long night. A question might reasonably be asked here; ‘How can the greenhouse effect of CO₂ be responsible for all this surface heat, by trapping upwelling longwave radiation, emitted from absorbed direct solar insolation and hence keeping the surface hot with re-emitted downwelling radiation, when no direct Sun arrives to the surface during the ‘day’ and when no Sun at all arrives during the long ‘night’?’
4) Fourth, the very high albedo reduces Venus’s access to solar insolation. Even though Venus’s TOA insolation is ~2x Earth’s, the reflectivity of Venus is so high at 75% that this more than cancels out the higher TOA insolation. This means that although it is closer to the Sun, Venus actually receives much less Solar warmth than Earth does; (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth. If Venus receives even less solar radiation than the Earth does, how can it maintain a very much higher temperature profile in its atmosphere?
5) Fifth, although as might be expected because of its high density, the Venusian atmosphere moves only slowly at the surface (<10km/hr), it rotates very rapidly at height, the cloud tops level circling the planet every 4 days at speeds of up to 100m/s (360km/hr) (Svedhem, Titov, Taylor, & Witasse, 2007). It is known that the wind speed increases monotonically from very slow at the surface, upwards through the atmosphere to the cloud tops at 70km in height, where the wind speed is ~360km/hr. Why does the Venusian atmosphere rotate westwards at sixty times (Hollingsworth, Young, Schubert, Covey, & Grossman, 2007) the rotation speed of the planet, and what is the mechanism driving and maintaining it? Given that the atmosphere is in constant motion like this, how is the alleged greenhouse effect affected?
I anticipate that Anthony Watts and Willis will shut this debate down withing days, just like they did last March.
They are losing so badly that they have (as before) resorted to insults instead of any fact-based argument.
“They are losing so badly that they have (as before) resorted to insults instead of any fact-based argument.”
LOL:
The usual WUWT denizen logic of the motivated speaking most often and loudest “winning” in their eyes.
A biased Blog (it is – biased that anything that disproves AGW must be correct) is not an exercise in science.
However having said that – it is clear that WUWT does not support N & Z’s physics (head post) and by extention SW’s.
One gives up the will to live when ‘talking’ with the likes of Steven and others of his Sky-dragon slaying type. And Foxtot Oscars away.
Unwinnable as they are simply impervious
That’s not “losing” anything, it’s a realisation of that fact.
One can only go on bangimg ones head against a wall for so long before the penny drops.
(Snipped the banned name) MOD
If not then do Google him.
In a world of his own making.
Bless.
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
No it does not, on average it receives 0.24*1.91/0.69 = 0.66 times the solar insolation of Earth.
Tv=∜0.66 x Te = 0.90 x Te
Earth temperature at 1atm = 288K
Venusian temperature at 1atm = 340K
The fourth root of 0.66 is 0.90
288 x 0.90 = 260K
Have you done work for the IPCC?
Looks like it with those figures.
Have you done work for the IPCC?
Looks like it with those figures.
I used the readily available values of albedo, 0.31 for earth, 0.76 for venus.
In your later post you used 0.29 and 0.75 so I don’t understand the point of your question. You earlier posted a comparison of earth and venus’s temperatures based on incident radiation without allowing for albedo, after I pointed that out you made the following statement.
Fourth, the very high albedo reduces Venus’s access to solar insolation. Even though Venus’s TOA insolation is ~2x Earth’s, the reflectivity of Venus is so high at 75% that this more than cancels out the higher TOA insolation. This means that although it is closer to the Sun, Venus actually receives much less Solar warmth than Earth does; (2,644/4) x (1-0.75) = 165 W/m² vs (1,366/4) x (1-0.29) = 242 W/m² for Earth.
So you end up with 0.68 whereas I calculated 0.66 which gives a temperature ratio of 0.908 for you compared with 0.901for me, huge difference.
Completely disagreeing with the guy who posted:
The temperature of a planetary body in space varies with the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, meaning that the temperature of Venus at 1atm (Tv) should be the fourth-root of 1.91 times the temperature on Earth at 1atm (Te). Venus receives 1.91 times the solar insolation of Earth.
The strange thing is that that post was by you a day earlier!
Phil,
The points I made for there being no GHE on Venus are intended to cover all cases of ‘belief’.
In other words, there are those who think that albedo affects surface temperatures in planetary bodies with thick atmospheres.
However, this idea is inconsistent with measurements, made in the Venusian atmosphere itself – (i.e. that at 1 bar, the temperature is exactly the 340K predicted by the thermal enhancement model).
So there is no inconsistency at all, sorry.
I might be wrong but I think that this article might be interesting in this context.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/12/its-the-gradient-stupid/
And this certainly is relevant:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html
With regard to myearlier analogy I’m sure the bit about elevating my foundry is wrong but I imagined that taking a pressurised bottle up into a lower pressure zone would get the gas to flow the same as adding heat down below. I didn’t mean to suggest that it would add heat. But I’m probably muddling things!
That link to Lubos’s site is something I hadn’t seen before and I broadly agree with it so I’m not here pressing for some arcane, novel concept.
My description simply sets out the mechanical process that gives rise to the real world observations that have exercised so many powerful minds over recent years.
I’ve no idea why nobody else has ever done it but I’ve certainly never come across such a simple, logical, coherent description.
All one needs to do to resolve all those vast collections of disputatious verbiage in relation to the greenhouse effect is to recognise that descending air warms as it descends and thereby reduces surface cooling so that the surface must become warmer than S-B predicts.
The entire AGW edifice is broken by that single, simple observation.
“descending air warms as it descends and thereby reduces surface cooling so that the surface must become warmer than S-B predicts”.
Not observed when I walk outside day or nght since the wind hits me in the face or the back, not the top of the head and coming up from my feet all the time. There are no such columns observed & thus do not exist in largely hydrostatic atm. as Stephen imagines.
Low pressure and high pressure systems exist and rotate, produce geostrophic winds and over the globe are surface warming neutral so do not make the surface warmer than S-B predicts as they do not change the IR opacity of the atm. The entire AGW edifice is NOT broken by that imaginary single, simple observation.
Looks like a number of objectors have heard about this thread and are coming over here to suppress it.
I have a long history with Trick, denying basic meteorology.
Yes Stephen, as Leif et. al. also repeatedly point out you have a long history of denying basic text book meteorology and simply use your imagination to invent processes that do not exist in nature. When challenged you sometimes write all modern texts are wrong and some mysterious text you can’t remember from 50-60 years explained it.
Do you feel the CO2 DWIR on the top of your head at night with a clear sky?
Remind us again how many Watts/m2 it is supposed to be.
Not sure what A C means by “feel the CO2”. It does feel colder on clear sky nights than some increased temperature overnight due backradiation from atm. liquid H2O on heavily clouded nights or even rainy nights basking in the glow of the released latent energy.
Trick, how many watts per metre squared are coming down from CO2 as per GHG theory?
Dunno without doing the research work A C. I put your question into google and found a number of authors might have formed an opinion, I’d recommend you follow-up with them. I do have in inventory a 2012 paper that has done the radiative-convective equilibrium work for global cloud free all gases w/o CO2 effect on OLR if you are interested.
I think I finally understand the Nikolov-Zeller argument and where it goes wrong.
Start with a day/ night atmosphere. The dayside gets 684 watts per square meter, the nightside gets zero watts per square meter.
DAYSIDE temperature would average (684/390.7)^.25 *288 K= 331 K
NIGHTSIDE temperature would approach 0 K,
for an overall average temperature of 1/2(331 K + 0 K)= 160.5 K
They think the atmosphere will transfer wattage from the dayside to the nightside, reducing average daytime temperature, but increasing nighttime temperature. Since temperature is proportional to the fourth ROOT of wattage, such a process, if it existed, would increase overall average temperatures.
After all,
(342)^.25 is a lot warmer than 1/2[(684/390.7)^.25 + (0)^.25)]
Stephen Wilde stated, “After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.”
But as I pointed out, Nitrogen or Argon near the ground may warm by conduction with the ground during the day, but higher in the atmosphere, temperatures will remain stable.
That Nitrogen or Argon near the ground will COOL during the night, but upper atmospheric temperatures will remain stable. As a result, there will be a temperature inversion later in the night, as the earth cools. There will be NO Hadley circulation, that near ground daytime Nitrogen or Argon is NOT going to replace the colder, denser near ground nighttime Nitrogen or Argon.
Stephen Wilde might consider reading about “temperature inversions” and “atmospheric stability”.
Alan,
The model is a non-rotating world. On this world one hemisphere is always day and the other is always night. So, the surface on the day-side can never stop receiving heat because night never happens there. The gas above this surface is always being warmed by contact with the lit surface, and because it is a mobile fluid it will ascend by fluid overturn. Because it is not a greenhouse gas it cannot cool by internal thermal radiation to space.
Now there is no physical wall on this model world that separates day from night. So, the heated atmosphere on the day-side will flow round onto the cold vacuum surface of the dark-side. This advected air will warm the dark-side surface and then that heated surface will radiate heat to space through the transparent atmosphere; cooling the air at the base that is in contact with it. This cooled air then flows back to the lit side as a cold high density airmass. The planet has in effect one gigantic Hadley Cell with continuous heat export from the never-ending day of the lit hemisphere to the never-ending night of the dark-side.
NO!! It WON’T flow to the dark side. Higher in the atmosphere, temperatures are the same EVERYWHERE! Cold air near the ground at night will give a temperature inversion, which remains stable.
Where is the air becoming less dense and rising? Supposedly on the day side- but the upper air is already less dense, than or equal to 0.98 degrees C cooler per additional 100 meters increase in height, so the warmer air near the surface of a non greenhouse gas planet is NOT going to rise.
As shown here:
Ok, we’ll just scrub out the Hadley and Ferrel cells and every high and low pressure cell containing descending or ascending air on the planet on Leif’s say so.
Again, you show no understanding of the difference between convection and circulation.
What I showed was observational data. You do not understand the difference between the temperature everywhere being the same and the lack of difference between night and day at altitude at any given location.
Ah well, no surprise there.
That the temperature at altitude is the same day and night is not controversial [has been known for a century].
Here is a typical profile:
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228751584_Air_pollution_meteorology/figures?lo=1
That you didn’t know that is no surprise.
Leif,
and
It is not the temperature at altitude that is the issue here, it is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation. We have a model world, one that is non-rotating with a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere that is also non-condensing. If you find that to be a stretch, let us assume that the non-greenhouse gas is hydrogen, which has a boiling point of 20K at 1 atmosphere.
Our model planet is a super-Earth with a gravity sufficiently strong to hold on to a hydrogen atmosphere, and that this world has a geothermal gradient of 0.1 W/m2. The geothermal gradient is realistic (it is Earth’s value) and this heat flux, although very low, will create an irreducible surface temperature of 36K by the S-B equation. So, the hydrogen gas can never condense anywhere on the surface of this model planet and it will always have an atmosphere.
Now, on the dark side of our non-rotating super-Earth the hydrogen atmosphere will cool by contact with the 36k geothermally maintained ground surface. As long as there is a surface irregularity, horizontal advection of cold air will occur. We know that in Antarctica in winter surface cooling of the air produces ground hugging katabatic winds of such force that they reach the coast and form the basis for the circulation pattern of the Polar cell.
Maybe you don’t like this idea of density currents flowing for long distances over the surface of a planet? I however find Marcel Leroux’s concept of a Mobile Polar High to a perfectly credible mechanism for transporting cold, polar air from the dark of an arctic winter night south towards the light, where surface heating of the cold air by incoming solar radiation can occur.
So yes, inter-hemispheric exchange of air mass at the surface, even on a non-rotating world, is a perfectly credible dense fluid transport mechanism. It forms the basis of a process that can be invoked to complete the global circulation cell of this non-rotating model world with its non-greenhouse gas atmosphere.
it is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation
Difference from what? The sentence is not even grammatically correct…
Leif,
difference in temperature
Leif,
Difference from what?
difference in temperature
Please don’t try to be cute. A difference is between two things, so a difference between a temperature at one place or time [where, when] and a temperature at another place or time [where, when].
Leif,
Lost in translation?
difference in temperature temperatuurverschil
temperatuurverschil temperature difference (Reversed using Bing Translator)
Leif,
Lost in translation?
No, but it does not make sense to just say “difference in temperature”. You have to say “difference in temperature at point A and at point B”. It takes two numbers to make a difference.
What is it about this that you don’t understand?
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
Attaboy! Now remember the lesson: don’t be cryptic or assume that the readership can read your mind. Be explicit and precise.
difference in temperature between the lit side of the planet which is hot and the unlit side of the planet which is cold.
The point was that at altitude [above 500-1000 m] there is no difference between day and night temperatures.
And the key point is this:-
It is the difference in temperature at the ground surface that drives circulation between two places. One lit and warm the other dark and cold.
The model is demonstrating that at the surface the difference in temperature between lit and warm place A and dark and cold place B is the imbalance that leads to fluid motion.
Surface temperature differences cause by thermal radiation from the solid land surface to space is the mechanism that causes the formation of the Land Breeze at night moving cold air from the radiatively cooled land surface downslope towards the adjacent sea.
Note that Dr. Motl’s refinement of Mr. Heller’s post still requires greenhouse gases for an elevated surface temperature; it just says that after a certain greenhouse-gas concentration the surface temperature becomes more less sensitive to that concentration than to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
Lubos accepts that his work is incomplete.
If he plugs in my convective overturning model I’ve no doubt he can then exclude GHGs.
“Nitrogen or Argon near the ground may warm by conduction with the ground during the day, but higher in the atmosphere, temperatures will remain stable.”
Ever heard of the lapse rate ?
Or convection ?
Stephen, where is the best place to look at the convective overturning model? I’m a retired process engineer and have always doubted the AGW theory but never to the confidence level I’d like to have. This thread has taken me almost there, just a little reading needed without wading through every post on this thread.
Hi Martin
It was originally published here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Thank you, I’ve read it and think that it’s a simple and convincing way of explaining the basics. Far better than radiation alone . It also has the benefit of matching observations on the earth and other planets which radiation alone theories can’t do while giving a place for radiation.
Thanks, but it seems to upset a lot of people who simply refuse to address it whilst creating a thread of over 1000 posts.
It’s a terrible human characteristic the closed mind (sceptic or alarmist) and I believe that this great site is diminished by the headline and some of the rhetoric. The sad thing is that the real problem on the left and in the NWO, those scientists who suck off the AGW teat and the warmist industry will never look at the conclusion never mind the reasoning.
Agreed, but I wouldn’t like the truth to disappear into the ether with a world like 1984.
It would be nice if we could focus on a specific point of contention and hash it out in a civil manner.
We were challenged to accept Willis proof. I don’t accept it and I explained why. So far no direct response to this.
There are a lot of side arguments going on.
For cripes sake if we argue about the entire breadth and scope of Stephen’s theory or NZ’s theory then it’s going to be a mare’s nest. The basic task at hand is: is Willis’ refutation sound, yes or no? Regardless of whether or not NZ are correct, is the refutation sound?
Focus, please. Then we can move on to the next step.
Don132
No hope of that. It always comes to this when progress is being made.
Don, the answer is for me is No.
You cannot dispute a theory by on Physics, Maths and actual measured data using an imagined world that bears no relation to reality
But then I am a nobody, just a reader of other’s work.
based not “by”.
Funny to see how non:physicists try to fight each other using pseudo-scientific arguments.
Of course, there is greenhouse effect.
And of course, there is the adiabate that finally defines the surface temperature.
If you climb up the mountain, you will certainly freeze.
If you descent down a deep mine, you will feel like in sauna.
The adiabatic hight temperature lapse is given for the planet and is starts not at the surface, but at the tropopause.
Thus, everything is defined by the tropopause height.
And this depends on the atmosphere composition- where the atmosphere becomes transparent for the infrared radiation. This, of course, depends on the radiation band and the clouds.
There is no simple answer where the tropopause is located. It must be measured and modeled in complex computer models.
It is true that Venus surface is so hot because it has a very thick atmosphere. It’s surface is completely insulated for the infrared. So, it may have any (!) temperature according to the simple SB law. It is the adiabatic that defines the actual temperature.
It is true that Mars is so cold because it’s atmosphere is rarefied – and contains no moisture. Though, Mars has 50 times more CO2 compared with the Earth (absolute value!).
The Jupiter atmosphere has nice 20 degree Celsius at the pressure of two bars. Although it is that far from the sun.
Alex,
So what is your take on this paper that it is pressure and not temperature that defines the location of the tropopause?
Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15.
Would it not be better to say that the tropopause is simply the point where the atmosphere changes from being dominated by conduction and convection and perfect gas laws to dominated by radiation. Is it not dependent on pressure, temperature and composition. How about the point where the lapse rate changes from + to -. I think this is the key to understanding what Stephen and people like him are saying and understanding the Venus temp. In the troposphere, radiation is a sideshow, it has its day later and higher.
Martin, good question but might be increasing complexity when we need not.
It is generally accepted that convection dominates in the tropopause with radiation dominating in the stratosphere but that is not the whole story. There is still some convection in the stratosphere and there may be some in the mesosphere too.
Note that the lapse rate for the whole atmosphere is shaped like a ‘W’ on its side so that the change between troposphere and stratosphere is effectively cancelled out in the mesosphere.
In the thermosphere the lapse rate warms up again due to direct solar effects but it is so thin that it doesn’t matter.
For the purposes of hydrostatic equilibrium it is best to go as far as the top of the mesosphere and average out the various changes in the lapse rate on the way up.
Due to the vast bulk of the atmosphere being in the tropopause it is usually enough just to consider the tropopause as does the US Standard Atmosphere which adequately predicts the temperature at any given height for aviation and rocketry.
The US Standard Atmosphere has no term for atmospheric composition and composition is irrelevant on Venus too.
The reason for that is that convective adjustments eliminate radiative imbalances such as those from GHGs.
Composition is not relevant to surface temperature unless it affects mass.
“The US Standard Atmosphere has no term for atmospheric composition and composition is irrelevant on Venus too.”
The US standard atmosphere includes the composition of the avg. midlatitude tropics.
Yes, that was a tricky one relating to the Gas Laws but not really helpful in the current context. Good brain exercise, though.
Ok. So having possibly confused myself further, here’s a question for Stephen:
As you say, and I think rightly, the energy needed to keep the atmosphere up is locked into the atmosphere. So say we have a planet with only frozen nitrogen on it and I’ll count everything as abstract energy including gravity for the sake of the argument. So the earth has 2 units of gravity.
Someone turns the sun on which emits at a constant rate of 2 units. First the earth heats by time T1 to 2 units stored at which point it would start to radiate back 2 units to space were it not for the fact that as it warmed the frozen nitrogen starts to absorb energy and evaporate from the surface so that some additional energy – say 1 unit gets absorbed by time T2, while 1 unit is emitted by the earth to space. The earth continues to receive the same solar input of 2 units, store 2 units, emit 1 unit to space, and conduct 1 unit to the atmosphere until at time T3 the atmosphere has reached maximum density and pressure of 2 units in opposition to the 2 units of gravity. So we have a total energy content of 4 units to the system at which the system as a whole has reached equilibrium with the incoming radiation as no more energy can be stored in the system. At this point T4 the earth/atmosphere system holds 4 units – ie twice the bare earth energy storage – receives 2 units, and emits 2 units.
However, the earth energy remains only 2 units – so no addition energy. Why? Because all the energy in the atmosphere is being used up in holding it up. As you point out a unit of energy cannot be in two places at once. For the energy in the atmosphere to warm the earth it would have to do this and hold the sky up. This it cannot do since it can’t be in two places at once. The cycling of convection and kinetic/potential energy transformation is all just part of how the atmosphere stays up and is totally consumed in this process. It has no energy spare to heat the earth.
So I think I’ve ended up agreeing both you and Willis.
The store of energy holding up the atmosphere is held within atmospheric mass resting on the surface so that the surface has to have an additional 2 units to keep the process running but those 2 units do not get radiated out. The surface has to carry enough kinetic energy to support both 2 units out and 2 units recycling. So 4 units at the surface.
Martin, one mistake all these purveyors of ‘silly’ as an adjective for the findings of James Clerk Maxwell and several presentt day scientists (see Tallbloke etc.) plus plenty in between, is to confuse solids eg a frozen atmosphere, with any gaseous one. Guess which phases of matter have the Gas Laws, and which lack them. Few here on this post seem to grasp that simple indeed “Silly” Law of Physics. The Ideal Gas Law or Poissin Relation as Maxwell incorporated it. And the “Silly” proponents also lack contact, we have seen, with real atmospheres in their minds. Ones which are warmed by the sun and surface day and night.
Stuck they are, on ideas of air pumps heating and cooling without making a small upward step away from Models, always wrong, to the real solar heated world I feel lucky to live in.
The value for Gravity (eg g/Cp) is included in Lapse Rate and other similar atmospheric formulae. They do not work without it, which should be a clue. I know the scales fell from my eyes when I saw the solar system lapse rates. Some ten year ago. By the way, the idea that many gases do not radiate is facing extinction by recent research. Raaman and Spectral. As is the claim that volcanic/tectonic CO2 is a minor emitter. They just assumed without looking, but that has changed and Murry Salby should have the last word….Brett
N2 & O2 do absorb and emit solar radiation. But because of their strong molecular bonds, it is in the UV, largely far UV.
For this reason solar absorption and emission occurs in the high atmosphere and most relevant photon energy does not reach the surface. Good thing, because organic tissue is susceptible to bond breaking by UV
N2 & O2 do absorb and emit solar radiation. But because of their strong molecular bonds, it is in the UV, largely far UV.
Nothing to do with the strength of the bonds, due to the symmetry of the molecule it can not be excited in the vibrational and rotational modes only the electronic, there absorption only occurs in the electronic modes hence in the UV.
For the benefit of Leif I’ll start a new sub thread here.
This is the description I will accept comments on:
i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.
Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.
On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.
After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.
At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.
During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.
Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.
ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.
On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drop to 222K when observed from space. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.
On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.
One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.
That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.
That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.
The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more.
ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K
Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would still show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.
Stephen,
Why is all of this needed? You’ve given a number of points that are subject to debate, meaning: here we go again.
Why not one simple question: can a GHG-free atmosphere be warmer than the surface? And the answer is yes, by using simple logic, conduction/convection, and the ideal gas law. Far fewer things to argue over. I believe I might have already laid out the argument.
And I disagree with those who say game over. I say it’s been a confused mess.
Don132
can a GHG-free atmosphere be warmer than the surface?
Too fuzzily stated. The temperatures of what and where, precisely? Of the soil [surface] or the air one centimeter above the surface? or 10 miles up? Or what?
Let’s say one meter up.
Don132
Sadly it isn’t that simple.
The atmosphere can be warmer than the surface but not routinely.
Under a descending air mass the air is usually colder than the surface but warms as it comes down.
It reaches maximum temperature at the surface which may or may not be at the same temperature.
Either way though it does reduce surface cooling to space and that is not taken into account in the radiative theory.
That is, it doesn’t reduce the rate of cooling to space but it means that the surface temperature remains higher than it otherwise would have been because you have to offset the KE from descending air against the normal radiative cooling to space.
Some people see it instantly and others just never grasp it.
For cripes sake can’t we focus on Willis’ simplified planet just to demonstrate that it’s possible?
If you can’t handle Willis’ hypothetical planet and take it down with a few well-considered logical steps, then I say it is game over, but not the way you think it is.
You’re confusing things, Stephen.
Don132
You’re confusing things, Stephen.
A standard trick.
I have done. Willis’s planet required multiple suns and a featureless surface to prevent density differentials in the horizontal plane and thereby eliminate convection.
On those terms he is correct and he would get an isothermal atmosphere but that is not reality. In the real world convection is unavoidable and you cannot have an isothermal atmosphere.
Yes Leif & Don, Stephen 12:23pm is imagining things as always: “Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath”.
That isn’t the way convection works in the real world, convection only works that way in Stephen’s robust imagination. I’ve shown Stephen videos of convective columns rising and what happens in real tests is not what Stephen describes.
The tests show the fluid that flows in below the rising column comes in laterally at the same density and temperature of the surface fluid. The fluid at the top spreads out mostly laterally too, the fluid doesn’t cool and descend in a column on the other side of the planet as in Stephen’s imagination.
Stephen’s 12:23pm story falls apart at that point for sure.
In reality, Stephen’s imagined story falls apart immediately when Stephen announces his imagination of meteorological science makes 100% N2 a non-radiative atm. Thus, Stephen loses touch with reality in the very first sentence of his 1) as N2 does radiate even in Earth’s atm.
I may be sorry that I’d wish the comments would be extended!
The only thing I’ll say right not is that through all this hash I don’t see where anyone has refuted Willis’ model, and that includes my own refutation– which I noticed hasn’t been paid much attention to. I don’t take it personally, I just wonder if that’s because it’s very wrong or very right. Arguing that the ATE must be wrong because the temperature on earth can be explained by the greenhouse effect doesn’t cut it for me, because just because a theory is internally consistent and appears to accord with the facts doesn’t mean it isn’t just epicycles.
In any case the only task that the gravitationists have been charged with in the top post is to refute Willis’ model, and I strongly disagree that “that’s not fair.” It’s perfectly fair. If the theory of ATE is correct, then the atmosphere of Willis’ planet must be able to rise above S-B surface without violating conservation of energy, and if the gravitationists know what we’re talking about than we should be able to explain it. We don’t have to worry about convection! We’re not talking about how earth works; we’re talking about how a theory that purports to be in accord with established physical laws and principles would be applied to a set of conditions unlike earth’s.
If the authorities on the ATE can’t demonstrate how their theory works on Willis’ planet then it would seem that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and I was wrong for believing that they did. Either way it doesn’t matter to me, we’re fine, the world isn’t going to burn up from CO2.
Don132
Stephen: “Willis’s planet required multiple suns and a featureless surface to prevent density differentials in the horizontal plane and thereby eliminate convection.
On those terms he is correct and he would get an isothermal atmosphere but that is not reality. In the real world convection is unavoidable and you cannot have an isothermal atmosphere.”
Not an answer, Stephen. I don’t even think the question is whether the atmosphere would be isothermal or not– who cares? The question is, if pressure is what’s making the atmosphere warmer than the BB temperature then how does it work on a model planet? The equation is T = PM/Rρ. There’s nothing about convection in that equation.
If the equation is correct then it must work in some far-off, unknown planet that somehow satisfies the conditions Willis has laid down.
Don132
Don132
Sokath, his eyes opened!
Congratulations on your breakthrough. And congratulations to PJF for the <a href=https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2578914 that was responsible.
I withdraw my assessment of your limitations. Perhaps I need to reassess my ability to explain things; I had thought I’d made the same point. Indeed, I had been under the illusion that what I’d said here was pellucid: “Here’s the reason why Mr. Eschenbach is right that almost all of those arguments are irrelevant: there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.” Apparently not.
However that may be, now that you’ve made one breakthrough and recognized that the greenhouse effect is needed, I commend to your attention the Steve Goddard / Luboš Motl explanation,/a> of why its effect eventually becomes negligible in comparison to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
If the temperature of a gas isn’t related to pressure, then how does the lapse rate work?
This question isn’t a challenge to anyone, it’s an honest question.
This is what confuses me: even in an isothermal atmosphere, there would be more pressure at bottom: denser. At the top the atmosphere would be very thin: let’s say one molecule/m2 at top and 100,000,000,000/m2 at bottom. Hence even though all molecules have the same kinetic energy and are technically at the same temperature, if you could walk from the bottom of the atmosphere to the top you would get colder the higher up you go, just as you get colder as you climb a mountain.
So what gives? What is the “temperature” of the atmosphere at the bottom of the isothermal atmosphere, where you start your walk and are warm, and the “temperature” at the top of the atmosphere, where you end your walk and are cold?
Don132
Joe Born,
“Don132 Sokath, his eyes opened! Congratulations on your breakthrough.”
Not so fast. Yes, PJF showed me that I was wrong by patiently taking me through it and cornering me: nice work! And yes, I do believe that I now have to rethink everything. And yes, you said the same thing but so much is coming through that it’s hard to consider everything.
But, I’m still waiting for a response by Holmes/Wilde or anyone who can answer Willis’ objection is a logical and sound manner using basic physics, without dismissing it because well … because maybe they can’t answer it? If the model really is impossible and not fair, then walk us through the physics of why that’s so. But focus on the simplest reason why not and let’s not talk about the entire theory so that everyone is confused and no one knows what the hell to respond to because so much as been thrown out. If Willis’ model is impossible and not fair, what’s the key and central and simple reason why not? One clearly and distinctly and patiently explained reason, please!
But yes, I seem to have been wrong about a lot of things, if my ideas about gas density and temperature were wrong. But to be honest I’ve given so much energy to this and I’m getting tired of it, and will accept that I’m mistaken and probably won’t give it a lot of thought unless Stephen or Holmes or someone else can come up with some convincing logic. I’ll mull it over.
If the ATE theory is wrong I’m OK with that. Like I said, I have no horse in the race except the ideas that I thought were correct but that turned out to be wrong.
So I’d say that the gravitationists are now up to bat.
Don132
Don132
Let me see if I can do that without flubbing the hyperlinks this time.
Congratulations on your breakthrough. And congratulations to PJF for the comment responsible.
I withdraw my assessment of your limitations. Perhaps I need to reassess my ability to explain things; I had thought I’d made the same point. Indeed, I had been under the illusion that what I’d said here was pellucid: “Here’s the reason why Mr. Eschenbach is right that almost all of those arguments are irrelevant: there would be no average conduction between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere if the atmosphere were perfectly non-radiative.” Apparently not.
However that may be, now that you’ve made one breakthrough and recognized that the greenhouse effect is needed, I commend to your attention the Steve Goddard / Luboš Motl explanation of why its effect eventually becomes negligible in comparison to the integral of lapse rate with respect to altitude.
Don132:
That’s exactly as it should be.
But the reason why it seems that so many of us won’t give any consideration to Mr. Wilde’s or Nikolov & Zeller’s theories is that we’d years ago been down that path, repeatedly imploring them to state their theories in a coherent way and repeatedly receiving nonsense in response.
There’s always a “step by step” explanation, but there’s always at least one step that’s not quite clear. And then, when you think one iteration is indeed clear and point out the clear physical-law violation, you get the accusation that you’ve ignored something—which again is either unclear or a clear physical-law violation. It never ends.
So what’s happened is that Mr. Wilde had long ago already wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours of other people’s time on his delusional physics, and here many more hours have been used up by some of us trying to save people like you from having your time similarly abused.
At least in this case Anthony Watts is contributing to the intellectual hygiene rather than, as in the case of Christopher Monckton or George White, aggravating the need for it.
Well, I say there’s likely a key point that either proves or disproves the ATE theory. So if we can get to that and continually point to that, then all these other side arguments would be unnecessary.
So far Willis seems to have gotten the gravitationists in a contradiction from which they can’t escape, except by denying the problem. That doesn’t mean I’ve turned against the gravitationists; I’m stating a fact, and I want to see them come through and explain the apparent contradiction in a manner that makes sense. Even if they say the model planet isn’t valid, they have to come up with a simple and elegant reason why not. I really don’t like convoluted answers that raise even more questions. If it’s basic physics and simple then it can be stated simply with basic physics, and I believe that the problem, boiled down, really is basic physics and simple.
The idea of temperature seems to be a key point.
Don132
Don132
The reason why you would (eventually, not initially) get colder as you ascend in an isothermal atmosphere is not that the air is colder but that, being less dense, it conducts heat to your skin more slowly, so it’s less able to keep up with what your radiative heat loss.
Joe Born:”The reason why you would (eventually, not initially) get colder as you ascend in an isothermal atmosphere is not that the air is colder but that, being less dense, it conducts heat to your skin more slowly, so it’s less able to keep up with what your radiative heat loss.”
I’ll buy that. But if you have a rock at ground level and a rock on the top of the atmosphere, which is warmer, in an isothermal atmosphere? Forget about an isothermal atmosphere, what about on earth?
If you put a thermometer at the top of an isothermal atmosphere– with only one molecule/m2– what would it register? Why?
Have to go for a while– like most people I have a life away from WUWT!
Don132
Don132:
There are too many variables for me to answer that. So let’s just concentrate on the rock at the top of the atmosphere, and let’s additionally make things really simple.
Specifically, let’s say the rock is perfectly round with radius
, unity emissivity 
, and unlimited thermal conductivity so that its temperature 
is uniform. Since it’s located at the top of the atmosphere there’s essentially no conduction, so heat flow occurs only radiatively. Perhaps that’s the key point here: the temperature of a rarefied gas doesn’t matter much.
Anyway, since the rock’s surface area
is four times the cross-sectional area 
over which it receives solar radiation 
at the solar-constant power density 
, the rock emits at 
. Since 
, its temperature ![T=\sqrt[4]{\frac{R_R}{\epsilon\sigma}}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T%3D%5Csqrt%5B4%5D%7B%5Cfrac%7BR_R%7D%7B%5Cepsilon%5Csigma%7D%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=000&s=0&c=20201002)
, if I haven’t flubbed the arithmetic, is 278 K.
That’s warmer than I would have guessed. But, of course, a real rock wouldn’t be perfectly round, and its thermal conductivity would be limited, so its average surface temperature would likely be much less. Depending on geometry and orientation, though, it could actually be greater.
Joe Born:
“Perhaps that’s the key point here: the temperature of a rarefied gas doesn’t matter much.”
But we are getting warmer! So the “temperature” of a rarefied gas does matter.
If we put a thermometer at the top of our atmosphere, what temperature would it read compared to sea level?
If I go to Willis’ planet and put one thermometer at the top of the atmosphere and one at the bottom, will they read the same temperature? I believe that they will not. So what’s going on? Because if indeed there are two temperature readings, then that seems to mean that pressure matters. Which thermometer tells the “real” temperature: the one on the surface or the one at the top?
Let’s forget about whether or not this raises the surface atmosphere above BB for now and just resolve the issue.
Don132
Don132:
For the reasons I gave before, that would depend.
But on an equilibrium, transparent-atmosphere planet—i.e., on a planet having an isothermal atmosphere whose pressure decays exponentially with altitude—the top-of-the-atmosphere thermometer would read the same as a thermometer at sea level if the former were accurate enough. But—and here I’m stepping beyond my metrology competence—I doubt we could make an ordinary mercury thermometer accurate enough.
The one on the surface, because it’s accurate enough for the job it was assigned, whereas measuring the temperature at the edge of space would (I believe) be too demanding.
And, no, pressure doesn’t matter. The pressure on a planet whose atmosphere is perfectly transparent has no effect on the average power of the radiation the planet’s surface emits; that average power has to equal the average absorbed from the sun. This is the key point, because the planet’s surface could, as ours does, radiate more than it absorbs from the sun if the atmosphere did include greenhouse gases.
But I could confuse the issue by saying instead that, yes, pressure does indeed matter even on a transparent-atmosphere planet. To the extent that pressure affects the rate at which heat can be conducted into and out of the planet’s surface, it affects the variance in (but, again, not the average value of) the surface’s emitted-power density, so to that extent it affects the average temperature.
However, that’s only a confusing irrelevant tangent. It doesn’t go to greenhouse gases’ effect.
Joe Born:
“But on an equilibrium, transparent-atmosphere planet—i.e., on a planet having an isothermal atmosphere whose pressure decays exponentially with altitude—the top-of-the-atmosphere thermometer would read the same as a thermometer at sea level if the former were accurate enough. ”
Here’s where it goes off the rails for me, and why I think the gravitationists have a point: I find it incredible to believe that a thermometer measuring an isothermal atmosphere with one molecule/m2 would read exactly the same as one measuring the bottom of the atmosphere with one trillion trillion molecules/m2. Or let’s exaggerate and say that the top doesn’t have one molecule/m2; it has one molecule/square mile, since we’re at the very top of this isothermal atmosphere and the pressure is way low. I find it hard to believe that the thermometer is measuring much of anything, yet it seems to me that whatever it’s measuring is exactly what we’re talking about, and not the kinetic speed of the molecules. And if we can conjure up Willis’ model planet then we should no problem conjuring up a thermometer that could measure both places accurately.
Don132
Don132:
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re saying. The issue is whether it takes greenhouse gases for the planet’s surface to radiate more than it absorbs from the sun. The “gravitationists” say no. I say yes. I don’t see that issue’s connection to how difficult measuring the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is.
Maybe PJF can give you a hand with this one.
Joe Born:
“Sorry, I have no idea what you’re saying. The issue is whether it takes greenhouse gases for the planet’s surface to radiate more than it absorbs from the sun. The “gravitationists” say no. I say yes. I don’t see that issue’s connection to how difficult measuring the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature is.”
At present, as I understand it, the issue isn’t what greenhouse gases do; for all I know the theory is just epicycles. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming it’s wrong. The present issue is, is there a temperature gradient on an isothermal planet? I say yes. You say no. I say yes because a thermometer at the top of the atmosphere measures no real heat content, as it were, even if the molecules there have exactly the same kinetic energy as the surface.
What is the thermometer measuring, if it’s not measuring what we normally think of as the temperature of a gas, defined as the average kinetic energy of the gas? If has to be measuring something like average translational energy per unit volume; the “per unit volume” I think is the key idea. The upper atmosphere doesn’t seem to have the same heat content as the lower atmosphere, even in an isothermal atmosphere, and I use the term “heat content” without doing any research into how that term is used in a scientific context. It’s just the best way I have right now of explaining how I’m thinking, which yes, may be just epicycles.
Don132
Don132:
Yes, a thermometer does indeed measure what we normally think of as a gas’s temperature, which is the mean kinetic energy per molecule per degree of freedom. If the gas temperature is 20°C., that’s what the temperature will measure, independently of whether a cubic meter’s heat content is 100 J or 1000 J.
It’s only when there are too few molecules for the thermometer to measure that it falters.
But the heat content is not the same if there are 100J at once place and 1000J at another.
What does a thermometer measure at the bottom of the Grand Canyon? What does it measure at the top? Why is the bottom always warmer than the top?
Is a thermometer measuring kinetic energy or joules?
I haven’t had time to research this new avenue of heat content and joules and might be lazy and let those who know answer. I really should be doing other things and WUWT has been taking a huge portion of my time.
Don132
“At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below ”
This cannot happen, since the less dense atmosphere 100 meters higher will ALREADY be less than 0.98 C cooler than surface atmosphere. You’re NOT going to get warmer Nitrogen from below pushing aside warmer Nitrogen from below. The Nitrogen CANNOT rise because at EVERY height, the supposedly rising parcel will be cooler and denser than, or the same temperature and density as, the air above it. Remember, that Nitrogen higher in the atmosphere already was heated at ground level previously, expanded adiabetically, and is now in balance with the atmosphere below. Your model CANNOT work unless EVERY DAY the ground continually gets more and more heat from the sun.
Alan,
We are living on a planet that has been continuously lit on one side since the time of its formation about 4.5 billion years ago; and has on the other side been in continuous darkness for the same length of time. So, the day lit surface of our Earth IS continuously getting hotter, but at the same time the dark night is continuously getting colder. The rotation of our world does not alter this fact, it merely moves the surface we live on from warming day to cooling night and then back again. Climate is all about the movement of gases over the surface of the planet, carrying heat from the warmth of the lit hemisphere to the cold of the dark side.
If this idea of continuous heating and cooling seems strange, consider the fact that due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis the polar night lasts for many months. In the dark of the high arctic winter air cools by ground surface radiation to space. The freezing arctic wind of winter is the return flow of dense cold air south from the long polar night towards the light.
“So, the day lit surface of our Earth IS continuously getting hotter, but at the same time the dark night is continuously getting colder”
In the words of Congressman Davy Crockett, that statement doesn’t make good sense. It doesn’t even make good NONSENSE!
If daily temperatures were continually getting HOTTER, the oceans should have evaporated away some time in the last 4 billion years. The earth’s temperature has remained relatively stable.
Let the ground, and Argon near the ground, be heated to , say 303 K during the day.
That ground air is going to expand, cool by 9.8 degrees K per 1000 meters.
At a height of 1000 meters the temperature wiil be 293.2 K. at 2000 meters it will be 283.4 K.
At NIGHT, the GROUND temperature cools, and you get a stable temperature inversion.
The NEXT day, when the ground Nitrogen is heated to 303 K it is NOT going to rise and get less dense because the Nitrogen 1000 feet up will ALREADY be at 293.2 K, the Nitrogen 2000 feet up will be ALREADY at 283.4 K. Your model quickly comes to a standstill. In contrast, in the REAL world, with greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will lose some heat due to radiation, so the temperature at 1000 feet will be LESS than 293.2 K, so ground air can move up and replace it.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
Can you please clarify, elaborate on this point. I’m not sure what it means.
PJF
“Can you please clarify, elaborate on this point. I’m not sure what it means.”
It’s one of the rules of the game. Only the solid planet surface can absorb sunlight and emit thermal radiation. The nitrogen gas can transport heat, but it cannot gain or lose internal heat by thermal radiation (it is a totally transparent non-greenhouse gas). The nitrogen can only gain or lose heat by conduction with the solid planet surface at the base of the atmosphere; which either warms the gas on the lit side or cools the gas on the dark side.
Having read all of the posts I’d say that in a boxing analogy the ref should stop the fight. In a soccer analogy it’s SW (and others) 5 WUWT 0 at half time.
Agreed.
Stephen,
I want to congratulate you on possessing endless patience and persistence here!
Holmes, you must be able to address Willis’ challenge regarding the hypothetical planet.
Don132
Why bother, when I can use measurements from the real thing.
Well what do you say about Willis’ model planet? Assume some numbers and plug in your equation. How does it work? If it can’t work then explain why not, according to the ATE theory.
Don’t think that’s asking too much. We’re going all over the place and arguing about too much and everything is getting confused. Yet so far as I see, Willis’ objection has not been answered.
Don132
Don,
OK I have read the nonsense posted at the top here by Roy Spencer. Here is some of it;
.
“Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up”
.
What makes him think that the energy loss from the surface due to warming by thermal enhancement will be any different to that of the supposed GHE?
A troposphere warmed by auto-compression will be no different to the one we have now. There will be long-wave back-radiation from the troposphere, caused by the thermal enhancement of the gases in the troposphere.
The emission height would change due to forcing by GHG as the atmosphere expands or contracts to compensate for that forcing; there will be no delay, this is 100% negative feedback to any GHG forcing.
The 100% feedback occurs because the atmospheric temperature in regions of the atmosphere which are >10kPa are not determined by the GHE, they are determined by two things; auto-compression and insolation. Why isn’t the GHE contributing anything to warming? Because there are no ‘special’ gases which can cause anomalous warming, first these are not allowed under the ideal gas law.
Also second; the total nonsense of this GHE idea is clearly revealed when one realizes that the IPCC claims that just 0.04% more CO2 will increase global temperatures by 3C, with a GWP of 1.
So what happens with the addition of a similar amount of a gas such as Sulphur Hexaflouride with its GWP of 23,900?
– Supposedly an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature of 23,900 x 3 = 71,700C or a surface temperature of 72,000 Kelvin caused by the addition of a tiny amount of gas? The GHE from ‘greenhouse gases’ is total nonsense and does not actually exist anywhere in nature.
.
Here is more from Roy Spencer;
.
“…. violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.”
.
There is no ‘violation’ of conservation of energy. Sorry Dr Spencer, you are wrong.
Because it is not real it is totally impossible.
I can imagine all sorts of things that fit theories, but if they are not real it is meaningless.
I am sure that this is where Mr Eschenbach will invoke “Schrodingers cat” etc.
A C Osborn: “Because it is not real it is totally impossible.
I can imagine all sorts of things that fit theories, but if they are not real it is meaningless.
I am sure that this is where Mr Eschenbach will invoke “Schrodingers cat” etc.”
I may be dense but I don’t understand why the ATE theory can’t be applied to the model planet.
If it cannot be, then explain clearly why not, using established physics. Just keep it simple and basic.
Don132
I am not a Phycisist, so how can I?
No you explain the “Physics” that would allow Mr Eschenbach’s Universe where you have a totally featureless planet with a monatomic atmosphere totally surrounded by thousands of suns.
It does not and cannot exist, it is a construct specifically designed to try and disprove a real world theory that applies to the real Universe using real Universe measurements.
The current CAGW theory cannot even get our own solar system’s Planet’s/moon’s temperatures correct without fudges, so why would you believe it?
A C Osborn
“No you explain the “Physics” that would allow Mr Eschenbach’s Universe where you have a totally featureless planet with a monatomic atmosphere totally surrounded by thousands of suns. It does not and cannot exist, it is a construct specifically designed to try and disprove a real world theory that applies to the real Universe using real Universe measurements.”
It cannot exist? I disagree. I have been to that planet. It’s very far away, and yes, it’s totally smooth– no one knows how it got that way! It has only one gas in the atmosphere … well, maybe it has a trace or two of other gases but everyone says they don’t matter. And here’s the really neat part: it really is heated evenly all around. It doesn’t have thousands of suns like Willis’ but only three, but is surrounded by a special plasma (above the atmosphere) which is unknown on earth, called heatevenium, which ensures that everywhere on the planet is heated equally, 24/7. There isn’t a lot to do there, though, which is why I didn’t stay.
Willis’ planet is improbable, but I fail to see how it’s impossible or violates any physical laws. In any case, physical laws apply: we all agree on that point. So where’s the ATE?
Don132
Sorry, your grasp of Universal physics is as poor as your imagination is great.
Your planet is not Mr Eschenbach’s planet as it has the wrong number of suns.
But if you want to believe it, that is fine by me, but that is faith not science.
You state that Physical Laws apply.
So let’s see how much you actually know about the physics.
Do you accept that Radiation is made up of Photons?
If yes, then do all photons have the same Frequency, Energy and Power?
Or do you believe that all photons are equal?
Do you know what the Height in the Atmosphere is where 15micron CO2 molecules outnumber the H2O molecules?
Do you accept that most of the CO2 molecule’s extra energy is lost to N2 & O2 molecules before they can emit a photon?
How, then do the N2 & O2 lose this energy?
Do you accept that less than half the photons emitted by CO2 molecules are directed downwards?
Do you know what the free path length of an IR photon is in the atmosphere?
A C Osborn
“Sorry, your grasp of Universal physics is as poor as your imagination is great.
Your planet is not Mr Eschenbach’s planet as it has the wrong number of suns.”
I look at the logic of arguments. That’s all. I back that up with my dismal understanding of physics; nearly everything can be understood conceptually and I change my mind as my understanding grows. Nevertheless I have a good grasp of the theory of CO2 warming and the greenhouse effect, have read widely on climate issues, and I don’t believe CO2 is a problem. I also believe that the central problem with the ATE theory might be the understanding of what “temperature” is, and that’s why sometimes you need to just look at the underlying logic and pay attention to it. I’m being critical of Stephen at this point because he seems to be stating that there’s a universal law (or theory), the ATE, that isn’t universal.
” … here’s the really neat part: it really is heated evenly all around. It doesn’t have thousands of suns like Willis’ but only three, but is surrounded by a special plasma (above the atmosphere) which is unknown on earth, called heatevenium, which ensures that everywhere on the planet is heated equally, 24/7. ”
So apparently you’ve never heard of heatevenium– I suspected as much. But you will note that although I did say that the planet wasn’t exactly the same as Willis, it was heated evenly, which is of the essence. I don’t think the number of suns is the real deal-breaker.
A C Osborn, I am not against your side. I am on whichever side ends up making the most sense. So far the gravitationists haven’t taken up the challenge and I implied that the key might be in the understanding of temperature, as I believe Joe Born might also have said or implied, but so far there’s not been a lot of response except to claim “no fair.”
Don132
“In a soccer analogy it’s SW (and others) 5 WUWT 0 at half time.”
Martin:
That always applies here.
As in the contrarian always wins.
The sheer weight of comments supporting it/them gives that illusion.
However it is the quality of the comments and who they come from that matter.
So are you saying that the comments of Leif Svalgaard do not carry weight?
Are you saying that all physicists/scientists this last ~ 150 years have got it wrong?
Are you saying that NWP models run by the world’s weather forecasting services – which carry empirical radiative effects at their core – do not come up with realistic outcomes?
If what SW says were true then radiative transfer codes within them would make a nonsense of their forecasts.
Sorry, but the weight of ‘opinion’ here is counter to AGW.
Most denizens will support anything that confirms their bias, even to the exclusion of common sense.
Oh, and another thing, this thread has been this long (don’t ever remember a thread this long here) merely because SW has persisted, whilst his detractors have got bored and left.
I have long since learned that ‘talking’ with his kind is is possible (actually we have talked long ago on another Blog).
Do you remember a certain (Snipped the banned name) MOD
Those that are invested in such sky-dragon slaying alternative physics are extraordinarily invested in them and TBH impossible to shift.
But if he says so … and you say so.
Don’t let the real world get in the way.
Anthony B, there is a lot of AGW theory that is plain wrong whoever the authority that makes the statements. There is also a lot of this enhanced Atmospheric effect that is right and which can be demonstrated to be so. I’m an engineer and whilst not an expert on anything, I understand enough of systems to be able to form a decent opinion.
Please don’t take this wrong but I believe you are a closed mind and a follower of authority and not really useful in a discussion like this where new views are essential. Sorry if that is incorrect.
“Please don’t take this wrong but I believe you are a closed mind ”
Martin:
There is a difference between a “closed mind”.
And one that accepts that science has been applying enquiring minds to the subject for ~ 150years – and not found it wanting.
If they had done then they would have got to the real answer.
Empirical science is science that has NOT been proven wrong.
People pushing Sky-dragon slaying physics such as SW are motivated at all costs to explain away AGW.
That is their motivation.
So they end up with something that is MADE to fit, despiemcarrying much miscomseption about how the atmosphere works.
SW does not know his meteoology.
I do.
Retired UKMO meteorologist.
Science starts with there being a problem and observing/testing/theorising to get to the truth.
We have done.
There is a GHE (As Roy Spencer, Christy, Anthony Watts and many other so-called sceptical heros also say).
Sorry about that.
There are a couple of problems with your statements.
1. science has been applying enquiring minds to the subject for ~ 150years – and not found it wanting.
Strange that there are lot’s of enquiring minds that have found it wanting, but their results have not been accepted by the mainstream.
2.Empirical science is science that has NOT been proven wrong.
The same answer, it is not if it has been proven wrong it is if it has been accepted to have been proven wrong.
You are an ex UK meteorologist, so do you personally believe that CO2 Back Radiation at 15microns heats the Oceans.
If so show us the observing/testing that proves it.
Do you personally believe that CO2 Back radiation is circa 300MW/m2 is heating the surface, ie higher than solar radiation when the power of CO2 photons is far less than those of shortwave an white light?
How can there be far more CO2 photons than Solar ones reaching the surface?
If so why can we easily feel the faintest sunshine but cannot feel anything from CO2 radiation on a clear night.
This obviously all makes sense to you, but it does not to me, whereas the affects of H2O make more sense to me.
Thanks for confirming my closed mind hypothesis.
Mr Banton, historically most of the threads on this subject are this long, if not longer, because the “Science is Not Settled”.
There were 500+ peer reviewed papers published last year that do NOT support the CO2 AGW theory.
Science does not progress by Concensus, in fact it stagnates because of it.
Actually that should read CAGW theory.
I’m just the stray dog that got on the pitch!
“Agreed”
QED.
“Agreed”
QED.
Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic and leave it to the reader to guess what you had in mind, if anything…
Ooh and ouch! – but all the same Leif, thanks for the concise informative answer about the solar interior. Beautiful information. Brett
“Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic”
I did. And I wasn’t.
Refer to my above post …. which got caught up in moderation (seems because of a certain persons name.
His surname being that of amnatural product that is ‘picked’, and goes to make clothes.
“Say what you mean simply and clearly.
Don’t be cryptic”
I did. And I wasn’t.
No you didn’t. And yes you were.
“agreed” to what?
“QED” what?
Don’t ask people to hunt around to see if what you said makes any sense.
Like I said – it should have followed immediately after the post that got caught up in moderation.
Which clearly explains the reason for the “QED”
So no hunting SHOULD NOT have been required.
But thanks for your concern.
We have the Nasa solar system data, the fact that Gamma = g/Cp etc., and yet some still play with models, valueless thought experiments, as if they meant anything. One does have to wonder what they are really pushing that is different to David Apelle, right down to the”sillimess” (sic). 4000ppm in the Eocene, lovely climate, no ice because the ocean circulation was not blocked ‘strategically’. Our ancestors did not fry or gasp to death then. Brett in a sane place, not Waterloo as it happens
Hi Don, I took a break. You said this in relation to my comment about Willis’s model:
“Not an answer, Stephen. I don’t even think the question is whether the atmosphere would be isothermal or not– who cares? The question is, if pressure is what’s making the atmosphere warmer than the BB temperature then how does it work on a model planet? The equation is T = PM/Rρ. There’s nothing about convection in that equation. ”
If there is no convection so that an isothermal atmosphere can develop then you are replacing a mobile, gaseous atmosphere with an immobile mass which then behaves like a solid. No convection and no decline in temperature with height because no work being done with and against gravity but plenty of conduction up the vertical column. In effect Willis is switching a solid for a gas so as to avoid the Gas Laws and then suggesting that the outcome is comparable.
The outcome is that the top of the atmosphere will be at the same temperature as the surface (you are effectively creating a new, higher surface so as to completely avoid the thermal effect of the mobility that goes on within ANY atmosphere) and both will be at the S-B temperature of 255k and NOT the observed temperature of 288k i.e. no ATE / Greenhouse effect. Then you DO need downward IR to create the radiative greenhouse effect and raise the surface temperature to 288k
Thus to get any ATE in a completely non radiative atmosphere you have to have convective overturning switching energy to and fro between KE and PE to get the mass induced greenhouse as per my step by step description.
Willis says he did not eliminate convection from any unworthy purpose. Others must make their own minds up about that.
Stephen,
I’ll have to think about your comment. What confuses me is why the top of the atmosphere would be the same temperature as the bottom, even in an isothermal atmosphere.
In a thinner atmosphere you’ll feel colder: there is less heat content even if all molecules are the same temperature. This idea of “temperature” seems a bit slippery.
Clearing this up would go a way to at least clearing up my confusion. After we take that step then I can re-read what you wrote and think about it.
“Willis says he did not eliminate convection from any unworthy purpose. Others must make their own minds up about that.” Is that really necessary, especially in light of prior complaints? I trust that we’re all good and honest people; some of us may be stubborn, some confused, etc., etc., but I’m going on the assumption that we’re all decent folk here who are trying to hash things out.
Don132
An isothermal atmosphere is, by definition, the same temperature from top to bottom. We are talking about the temperature of the molecules not the sensation of temperature one could perceive.
If there is no convection there will be no conversion of KE to PE as one goes up so no vertical temperature gradient.
It is an impossible scenario for a gas heated from below.
I withdraw the final sentence. Still affected by Willis’s and Leif’s far worse comments to me.
Don,
You now have your very simple response.
The radiative theory is only required to lift the surface above S-B if the atmosphere is isothermal.
No atmosphere is isothermal.
Convection prevents an isothermal atmosphere and also creates the potential energy store that is recycled back to the surface as KE to heat the surface above S-B
What more can be said ?
But the gas is heated from below. Plug in gas law equations: you should get temperature of surface atmosphere. If ATE is real then that temperature should be above surface BB temperature.
If this isn’t so, then explain the next step in the logic without presenting the entire theory with more questions than answers.
Don132
The Gas Laws don’t come into it if there is no convection.
The Gas Laws are applied to deal with the compressibility of gases.
If there is no convection there is no compression or decompression going on. It behaves just like a solid to which the Gas Laws do not apply.
So, no, you cannot ‘plug in’ the Gas Laws to Willis’s model.
Willis’s model , if applied to a non radiative atmosphere, has no greenhouse effect.
I’m not following.
If pressure has such an effect, then we should be seeing the effects of pressure.
You can plug in gas laws for upper atmosphere and lower and get difference result.
Therefore, according to the ATE theory, pressure matters.
Don132
Don,
The ATE only happens if there is a convective loop.
Hence the importance of my description.
Pressure per-se is not the cause if you lock am atmosphere in place.
You have to have an ongoing cycle of decompression and compression to get the ATE for a non-radiative atmosphere.
Willis does violate the laws of physics because you can never eliminate convection which inevitably leads to a decline in temperature with height due to conversion of KE to PE.
Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?
Stephen: “The ATE only happens if there is a convective loop.”
That’s not what T = PM/Rρ says. It says what it says, and they’ve found Willis’ planet– just heard on the news from Pleiades, although not exactly the same but very, very close– and so I’d expect the equation to work.
It seems that if pressure is indeed making the near-surface atmosphere warmer, and if it makes the bottom of the Grand Canyon warmer than the rim, then it’ll work on Willis’ planet as well.
I don’t accept that Willis’ planet isn’t fair because from my understanding of the ATE theory, it applies to Willis’ planet as well. But maybe my understanding is just a misunderstanding, and that fact that I misunderstood what constitutes the temperature of a gas tells me I may be wrong. But then again maybe the whole issue revolves around the idea of temperature.
Don132
Don, “Concern Troll”. Brett
That’s right, Brett, I’m a “concern troll,” whatever that is. Is this an attempt to dismiss me? If you want to dismiss me then answer the objections stated below https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2583196
For now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not resorting to name-calling instead of arguments from science or logic.
I expect those who support the ATE to rise to the challenge or else admit that there’s no solid foundation for the theory, and that it’s based on a proof that it turns out is no proof at all, but only circular reasoning.
Don132
Consider this.
When Willis’s atmosphere formed it took energy from the surface to support its weight against gravity.
Once formed it apparently stays in place with no convection.
Whilst stuck in place, further heat from the surface moves up the vertical column via conduction in order to bring the top molecules to the same temperature as the surface molecules.
And there it stays, isothermal and non moving.
So he has eliminated the downward leg of convection having permitted the upward leg to put the atmosphere in place.
You can’t do that.
As soon as the downward leg is permitted the descending air warms and releases more and more heat as it approaches the surface. After reaching the surface it flows horizontally to the next area of uplift and as soon as the loop closes the surface temperature rises above S-B without needing GHGs.
“You can’t do that.”
But Willis did. Physical laws apply. Although the planet might violate laws of imagination, it doesn’t violate laws of physics, so therefore I’d expect the ATE theory to apply if the ATE theory follows laws of physics.
Sorry, Stephen. I call them as I see them.
Don132
Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?
“Willis just freezes a gaseous atmosphere in place as if it were a solid.
Is that not a violation of the laws of physics ?”
We don’t know how the atmosphere got there. We take it as a given that it’s there. Willis nowhere says that he freezes a gaseous atmosphere.
If the ATE is real then it must be applicable as an effect throughout the universe, even on strange planets.
Don132
Freezes in the sense of rendering immobile so no convection.
Still, according to the theory of NZ/Wilde/Holmes, pressure is doing something. What is it doing? I don’t care if the atmosphere is isothermal: pressure, as far as I can see right now, is affecting the temperature profile of the isothermal atmosphere (I think it’s weird that it’s called “isothermal”) because if a thermometer at the very top of an isothermal atmosphere measures the exact same heat content as the bottom, then I’ll eat my hat.
Do you see where this is going?
Don132
Pressure only leads to an ATE if you have a recycling convective loop up and down.
Don,
Thermometers do not measure heat content, they measure temperature.
The pressure change in the troposphere on Earth is caused by auto-compression;
Auto-compression is well known in underground mining and is used by ventilation engineers to calculate how hot the mine air will get, so that they know how much cooling air to provide at each level. The effect of auto-compression can be calculated by the following relationship;
Pe = Ps exp(gH/RT)
Where;
Pe = absolute pressure at end of column (kPa)
Ps = absolute pressure at start of column (kPa)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²)
H = vertical depth (m)
R = Standard Temperature (Kelvin)
T = Final Temperature (Kelvin)
As can be clearly seen, this effect primarily relies on pressure and gravity, which will be different for each planetary body.
The thermal gradient/enhancement is caused by conversion of KE/PE during convection;
Note that we are examining a largely adiabatic process during convection. When a gas parcel expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops. However, when a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
Maxwell vs Arrhenius
There is a strong difference between the work and the views of the researchers Maxwell and Arrhenius. Maxwell’s work shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are primarily determined by convection and the atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity relationship. Arrhenius’s later work completely ignored this and determined that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.
Arrhenius was wrong.
Holmes,
“Maxwell’s work shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are primarily determined by convection and the atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity relationship. Arrhenius’s later work completely ignored this and determined that temperatures in the lower troposphere of Earth are caused by the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.”
I believe you are correct.
What has always bothered me is that atmospheric pressure is actually huge, even though 14.7 psi doesn’t sound like much, and I find it hard to believe that the only thing it does is make the lapse work work.
Let’s see what objections arise.
Don132
Re: Roger Taguchi January 4, 2019 at 11:01 pm
“Hi Dan!
…
3. When this 341.5 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be (using emissivity 1 for a perfect black body) 278.6 K (5.4 Celsius).
…..”
Wow, weekend is over and this thread is still (sort of) going. I briefly reacquainted myself with N&Z’s work and I remember now why I gave up on all the “disproofs” of their theory. Not that I’m claiming they’re right – I simply don’t know – but if somebody wanted to really shoot them down, it should be pretty easy.
N&Z start out by claiming that Earth’s gray body temperature actually calculates out to about 154K based on the idea that the earth is a sphere and not a 2D disk. They are are essentially claiming that warming, whatever the cause, is more than 100C higher than commonly accepted (above). Which, if true, means the commonly accepted amount of warming due to GHGs isn’t nearly enough to account for our actual temperature.
As far as I know, N&Z have never backed off this essential claim. Shoot it down and you’ve gone a long way towards discrediting their theory. And this claim is just based on math. My grasp of calculus has never been more than elementary, so I don’t know, but surely some PhD out there could prove them wrong (or right) since they provide their equations and logic.
Ok, Don
Let’s go a bit deeper into the Laws of Physics to show more clearly how Willis has violated them.
The Grand Canyon issue is quite simple. The difference in temperature between the bottom and the top is due to the lapse rate. Warm air at the bottom rises and in doing so it cools by expansion. Some of its KE becomes PE and PE is not heat.
If we apply Willis’s scenario which lacks convection there is no lapse rate because he proposes an isothermal atmosphere. The warmth at the bottom travels up the vertical column via conduction until both locations are at the same temperature. There can be no conversion of KE to PE in Willis’s model because there is no work done against gravity by rising air. In that scenario there is indeed no ATE as Willis says. No KE returning to the surface in descending columns does indeed mean no ATE if the atmosphere is non radiative.
Willis then uses that non convecting scenario to suggest that there also no ATE in a convecting regime such as the Earth’s atmosphere. That conclusion is clearly false.
Then there is your suggestion that a planet fitting Willis’s model might exist somewhere in the Universe.
In order to consider the possibility of that we need to consider the difference between solids and gases.
Solids have strong bonds between molecules that are different to break so over a large range of temperatures the molecules remain the same distance apart. No expansion or contraction to change the balance between KE and PE.
Gases have very weak bonds between molecules and will randomly vary their position relative to each other even at a steady temperature.
It is the random element that is critical because such randomness readily leads to density variations in all three dimensions and of course as per the gas laws density varies with temperature if pressure remains constant.
Thus, even in a stable temperature environment gases will form parcels of less dense molecules that will rise above more dense parcels and vice versa.
Now we all know by now that Willis proposes that, by having multiple suns and a smooth surface, convection can be eliminated so that an isothermal atmosphere can develop and, voila, no ATE in a non radiative atmosphere which is the whole point of his model.
Up to this point I have accepted for the sake of a simplified discussion that he could indeed eliminate all convection with multiple suns and a smooth surface and have just limited my point to the fact that such an arrangement is unrealistic.
But you have suggested that it might be possible somewhere in the universe so I have to go further.
I mentioned the random element in the movement of gas molecules such that irregularities leading to convection are inevitable even in a stable temperature environment
That applies even if Willis proposes a million exactly equal suns and a surface smooth at the atomic level.
Even in that scenario the random element in gas molecule behaviour will lead to convection and a coherent pattern of atmospheric overturning around the illuminated planet.
Willis’s model is indeed in breach of the Laws of Physics.
There is a reason that we need The Gas Laws
And if you add particulates in the atmosphere, rotation, movement through space, volcanic activity, the shifting of liquids at the surface and pressure from a solar wind all inducing irregularities within the atmosphere you can see that convection in any situation is inevitable within a gaseous atmosphere.
convection in any situation is inevitable within a gaseous atmosphere
Except that there is no convection at night…
Because the temperature at night increases with altitude up to 1000 feet…
Hadley and Ferrel cells and surface high and low pressure systems do not stop at night.
They are not convection [controlled by lapse rate], but circulation.
You have been told that repeatedly.
Low level convection develops into a broader pattern of circulation.
“Except that there is no convection at night…”
So, no night-time thunderstorms…
Are you sure about that?
Stephen,
At this point I’m concerned with the issue of what a thermometer is measuring at the top of an isothermal atmosphere, per my response to Joe, and I think that might clarify things, at least for me. If my thinking is correct, then a thermometer at the top of an isothermal atmosphere must measure less heat than one at the bottom, although I don’t think we have a word for what it measures if the “temperature” of a gas refers to the average kinetic energy of its molecules, without any reference to “per unit volume.” That had been my assumption all along, and that’s why I’ve always believed you and Holmes and NZ were correct.
So I’d like to focus on that for now.
Don132
Don
The thermometer will only register kinetic energy so if it tries to measure a volume of space with only one molecule in it the reading will be skewed downwards by the limited amount of kinetic energy in that space but the molecule will still be at the temperature of molecules on the ground.
However, in getting to the top of the atmosphere that same molecule has also acquired a whole load of potential energy which is not heat and the thermometer will not register it. If the thermometer could also register the potential energy plus the ground level kinetic energy held by the single molecule at great height then the temperature rise would be enormous It would show a temperature as high as if you moved that single molecule back down to the surface. It would then be way hotter than the surface molecules.
Which leads me to another breach of the Laws of Physics which I was holding back on due to the complexity that has already arisen.
Keeping the mass of the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium requires the upward pressure gradient force provided by kinetic energy to match the downward force of gravity at every height in an atmosphere.
If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.
On average you have to keep every molecule at the correct temperature for its height along the entire lapse rate slope otherwise you lose the atmosphere to space. Convection and the conversion of KE to PE with height arranges that for every real world atmosphere.
So, an isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible due to two separate breaches of the Laws of Physics
Stephen:
“If the thermometer could also register the potential energy plus the ground level kinetic energy held by the single molecule at great height then the temperature rise would be enormous. It would show a temperature as high as if you moved that single molecule back down to the surface. It would then be way hotter than the surface molecules.”
What you say makes sense. I can find no fault in this logic, and it’s what I was getting at.
So if the “temperature” at the top isn’t the same as the “temperature” at the bottom, then what does this say about this influence of pressure?
I’m ignoring the rest of what you say because it isn’t relevant to the main issue at hand, which is, can an isothermal atmosphere have a temperature gradient, and the answer appears to be yes or no, depending on how we define “temperature.” But, I think your idea is correct, and I hope it gets everyone thinking about what the real problem is and why we can’t seem to resolve anything. Once we all define what we’re talking about then I think we can make progress; but, still no score, in my book it’s 0-0 even after, what is it, 1,383 comments?
Just like what PJF did to me (nicely done!) at one point one side or the other is going to be cornered in a logical contradiction with no way out. That’s what I’m aiming for and I have no idea which side will end up cornered.
Don132
Don, now that you have been through the GHG calculations with regard to Radiation budgets let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. How many Watts/M2 at the surface comes from the Sun.
2. How many Watts/M2 at the surface comes from the CO2 DWIR?
A C Osborn
Is that relevant to the current discussion?
I don’t care if the radiative theory is self-consistent or not, and that’s not the issue right now.
Don
The clincher is this:
Willis’s model seeks to remove convective overturning so as to create an isothermal atmosphere. The temperature is the same from top to bottom in his model but the type of energy contained by each molecule still varies between KE and PE as one goes up along the lapse rate slope.
Since it is the change in the type of energy that creates a temperature decline with height then you obviously cannot prevent convective overturning and as soon as you introduce that you get the ATE.
So, Willis inadvertently proves the gravitationalists’ case.
For a completely non radiative atmosphere the only difference between no ATE and an ATE is convective overturning.
Radiation doesn’t come into it so when one introduces radiation as an additional parameter you have to consider a whole raft of different issues but they appear to be irrelevant to the presence or absence of the ATE.
Nice to see Ned weighing in here, I was feeling a bit lonely.
Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct but it needs my description to explain it and Willis has accidentally proved me and Ned to be correct entirely contrary to Roy Spencer’s opinion.
“Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct..”
Ned’s self claimed “discovery” that global atm. surface pressure increases acting alone can increase Earth’s global surface equilibrium T (either the 289K or any other equilibrium T) violates 1LOT as shown in the top post.
Leif, surely circulation is caused by convection?
Of course. Very odd for someone as eminent as Lief to make such a schoolboy error.
In science it is important to be precise and to use generally agreed upon terminology.
“Meteorologists have different terms for horizontal and vertical movement of fluids: movement in the vertical direction driven by buoyancy is called convection, and movement in the horizontal direction is called advection. Convection contributes, with radiation and conduction, to the movement of heat in the vertical direction. But advection is essentially the sole process by which heat moves laterally over the surface of the earth.”
The Hadley cells etc are advective circulations and are not considered to be confused with the vertical convection cells. But, without any formal training you may be excused for not having known this. But, now you know.
The Hadley cell is a vertical structure.
Hadley circulation flows laterally on the way toward the poles.
Anyone know the percent of absorbed IR by the atmosphere that is radiated to space by stimulated emission where two photons are emitted to space rather than one as in spontaneous emission? Also the percent of solar IR stimulating emission back to Earth?
This is an appeal to all of you interested in actual science:
Instead of wasting time discussing the drivel that Roy Spencer posted on his bog and Anthony Watts repeated here, please consider reading our actual published papers at least 2-3 times while trying to follow the logic of data analysis and reasoning, which are really straightforward:
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): 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 reading the papers, please apply a conscious effort to avoid the fundamental mistake made by Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenbach and many others in the past, which is to ARGUE against empirical evidence and data using a “theory”. This approach not only violates the Standard Scientific Method, but is quite unintelligent on its face. If there is a contradiction between your “theory” and the pattern emerging from observed data, what needs to be corrected (updated) is your understanding of the phenomenon. Don’t dismiss the data!
Wishing you success!
Ned, thanks for your comments.
As to arguing against “against empirical evidence and data using a “theory””, you have no “empirical evidence”. What you have is a wildly overfitted specially chosen equation. It has half the number of tunable parameters as the data points you are fitting.
Since you think your equation is correct, please apply it to the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos. In both cases it gives wildly incorrect answers … as is totally common with wildly overfitted equations when used out-of-sample.
I do NOT dismiss the data. Instead, I dismiss your overfitted equation.
Finally, you have not identified any errors in my proof that no atmospheric processes (density, circulation, pressure, etc.) can raise the surface temperature higher than the S-B blackbody temperature. Nor have you identified any errors in my analysis of your overfitted equation.
Best of the New Year to you,
w.
PS—My simpler equation gives about three-quarters of the RMS error of your wildly overfit equation. Here it is:
Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)
Why is my equation not the “right” one?
Oh, I remember now … my equation is wildly overfit as well.
Willis,
Did you miss our Jan 17 2012 reply to your blog article? Here it is: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
We explained the inadequacy of yours claims and the math errors you’ve made.
Now, you are not a scientist, and may not understand this, but “thought experiments” like the one you’ve concocted do NOT constitute a “proof” in physics! As for the direct effect of pressure on temperature, this has been known in atmospheric science for many decades. Google “adiabatic process” or “adiabatic lapse rate” to find out. FYI, the observed decrease of temperature with altitude is a manifestation of the adiabatic lapse rate and is caused by the drop of pressure with height. Also, the warmth brought about by Chinook and Santa Ana winds is purely a result of adiabatic (compression) heating experienced by air parcels descending down a mountain slope into higher-pressure levels. Adiabatic (pressure-induced) heating/cooling is at the heart of convection. You may want to watch these educational videos about adiabatic processes in the atmosphere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_M4jItiKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObnWb7yspxA
BTW, the term “adiabatic” means changing the internal energy of a gas system WITHOUT input or loss of heat into/from the system, i.e. without heat exchange with the environment. Adiabatic heating/cooling is strictly caused by pressure and it’s a very well understood process in Thermodynamics. Adiabatic process is the opposite of a “diabatic process”, where the system’s internal kinetic energy is affected by exchange of heat with the environment. You seem to be only aware of diabatic processes, but have no understanding of adiabatic mechanisms…. Our analysis of NASA planetary data revealed that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) a.k.a. “Greenhouse effect” is a form of ADIABATIC HEATING, i.e. a pressure-induced thermal enhancement, which is in complete agreement with Classical Thermodynamics and its fundamental laws. Specifically, as explained in our 2017 paper, pressure determines the Relative Atmospheric Thermal Effect (RATE), i.e. the Ts/Tna ratio. However, the absolute ATE (which is about 90 K for Earth) is determined by BOTH pressure and solar irradiance. In other words, the long-term average global surface temperature of Earth (and any other planet for that matter) is determined by a combination of both DIABATIC (solar-heating) and ADIABATIC (pressure-induced) processes.
So, your contention that “no atmospheric processes (density, circulation, pressure, etc.) can raise the surface temperature higher than the S-B blackbody temperature” is simply wrong and reflects a fundamental ignorance about Thermodynamics. Of course, you are excused because you have not had any formal training in physical sciences …
Pressure is a fundamental driver in any system, so much so that it’s impossible to have a kinetic energy and a temperature above zero in a system without some form of pressure present? That’s a fact! Even electromagnetic radiation has pressure. Did you know that the very unit used to measure radiation fluxes, i.e. W m-2 actually equals Photon_Pressure*Speed_of_Light. The Japanese even had a spacecraft entirely propelled by the pressure exerted by Solar Radiation … This is all described in our 2017 paper, which you have apparently not read/understood.
In regard to the “over-fitting” issue, it’s discussed in our paper as well, where we show that there is NO overfitting!
Wishing you success on your path to understanding atmospheric physics & climate science!
For those interested in meaningful discussions about our empirical discovery (yes, it’s NOT a “theory”, but a discovery!) and its implications for climate science, please visit my Twitter feed at
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience?lang=en
Thank you!
Ned, you carefully posted your reply, not here where I could respond to it, but over at Tallblokes where I’m banned from commenting. So no, I have not commented on it. I can’t. Well done!
Next, proofs in math and science occur all the time without any physical basis. They are done without any experiments. Mine is one of an entire class of proofs called “reductio ad absurdum”. From Wolfram Mathworld:
That is what I have done. I have taken your proposition, which is that GHGs are not necessary for the calculation of a planetary temperature, and shown that it results in a contradiction wherein the surface constantly emits more than it absorbs. Since that is impossible, your claim is proven to be false. And no physical experiment is necessary.
As to “no overfitting” … don’t make me laugh.
Finally, I invited you to apply your method to the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos. Now, you’d think that a man like you would welcome the chance to further prove your method.
But no, you’ve said not one word about that, stayed perfectly schtum … and since I’ve tried your method on both bodies I know why …
w.
PS—Could you stop with the “you’re not a scientist” nonsense? I have five peer-reviewed works of mine published in the scientific journals, including a peer-reviewed “Brief Communications Arising” in Nature magazine … a short piece, to be sure, but how many of your peer-reviewed claims has Nature published?
And I have over 125 citations to my work in the scientific journals. Not bad for a man with absolutely no formal scientific training, I’d say … yes, I am totally self-educated, but your confusing that with “uneducated” is a foolish mistake.
Willis,
1. I did not post my reply to WUWT in 2012, because Anthony Watts refused to publish it at the time. You can ask Roger Tallbloke about this.
2. In our 2017 paper, we apply our model in a predictive mode to calculate the average temperatures of several bodies NOT included in the regression analysis. These are Mercury, Callisto, Europa and Pluto. The results indicate excellent model skill based on the available independent data thus far. I’m not aware of any published global temperature measurements for Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos, which is why we did not apply the model to these bodies. Do you have references reporting such data?
3. You can apply our model to any rocky body in the solar system you want using the equations provided in our 2017 paper. Note, however, that you need to follow the methodology outlined in that paper for this, which is somewhat different from the preliminary approach presented in the 2011 poster. Here is the direct link to to our 2017 paper again:
Nikolov & Zeller (2017): 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
Please read it carefully and do not confuse this with stuff found online from 7 years ago!
3. Your “conclusion” that eliminating greenhouse gases “results in a contradiction wherein the surface constantly emits more than it absorbs” may be consistent with your own “thoughts” but it is certainly not with the physical reality. It is also inconsistent with classical Thermodynamics as I’ve clearly explained above. Also, it is ludicrous to think that “thought experiments” can replace empirical evidence. This not how real science works!
If you feel that you have a legitimate rebuttal against our findings & conclusions, why don’t you write a scientific paper about it and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, because that’s how this process works. Can you do that?
Thanks!
Ned, your paper makes the claim each solar system object’s Ts can be found from atm. pressure alone (Fig. 4) red curve and Tna of Earth’s moon. You even list the surface pressures of Mercury, Callisto, Europa and Pluto. Then under “Model Application and Validation” you apply many other factors than surface pressure alone (albedo, illumination over the orbit so forth). Even you do not follow your own paper’s statements in “Model Application and Validation”.
Ned, Ceres is not a Solid Rock Planet, it appears to be a mixture of Rock and Ice and has a temperature of approximately -105C, it is also very small and discharges water in spouts.
Phobos is just a large Rock, it is minute by planetary standards being only 70Km in Diameter and a temp range of -4C to -112C and mean of -40.15C.
This data is according to these 2 sources.
https://space-facts.com/ceres/
https://theplanets.org/phobos/
Trick, no it doesn’t you seemed to have missed the word “forcing” in the “two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.”
They explain that albedo is not a “forcing variable here
“The planetary Bond albedo (αp) was omitted as a forcing variable in our DA despite its known effect on the surface energy budget, because it is already dimensionless and
also partakes in the calculation of reference temperatures discussed b e l ow.”
”Trick, no it doesn’t”
What is meant by your “it”? Search the paper for “surface air pressure alone” then “night-side albedo” to find what is meant by my comment.
Trick the it is the expression is “Forcing Variable”, not just variables.
They explained that there are many variables, but they are not forcing variables.
It is a matter of classification, yours appears to be different to theirs, but they did declares theirs.
”Trick the it is the expression is “Forcing Variable””
Ok. Still, in Fig. 4, the only forcing variable in the caption is “total surface air pressure” for which they comment ATE is fully explicable by “surface air pressure alone”. Use the search strings I gave.
Oh, yeah, Ned, why no comment on my “discovery”, as you call it, that
Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)
Simpler and more accurate than your “discovery” … what’s not to like?
w.
Willis,
You’ve got to be kidding me! Your equation does not even come close in terms of accuracy to our original formula. I have exposed your confusion on this in our 2012 reply:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
Ned,
You are addressing the issue of which how to use to solve the problem and that is your area of expertise.
I am observing that the how is necessary because of the complexity of the problem that the “divide by 4” rule hides.
Ned Nikolov January 8, 2019 at 5:45 am
Not true in the slightest. I gave you two equations, one of which I said was more accurate than the other. You very carefully pointed out that the LESS accurate of my two equations was slightly less accurate than yours …
… but gosh, Ned, somehow the dog must have eaten your homework because you didn’t even touch the equation I gave just above. Test that one and report back here with your results.
And when are you going to tell us the results from testing your equation on the dwarf planet Ceres and the Martian moon Phobos? Here’s your big opportunity to test your equation out-of-sample … why so shy all of a sudden?
w.
Ned,
On the 2012 thread (now closed) at Tallbloke’s blog you say here:
January 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm
For me, this is the absolute crux of the matter and a point that has been forcibly made many times elsewhere.
The purpose of the “divide by 4” (flat-Earth) rule was to provide a geometric short-cut to determine the quantity of OUTGOING thermal radiation from the complete and total surface area of a globe (both lit and unlit hemispheres). I call this ”divide by 4” rule a trick equation. This trick equation CANNOT be used to measure the distribution of energy by the intercepting lit hemisphere over the curved surface of that globe, even if a “divide by 2” rule is applied just for this lit hemisphere only.
So, why for the intercepting lit hemisphere, does a “divide by 2” rule also not work? It is correct to say that the total incoming energy captured from the solar beam is equivalent to a disk of planetary radius (with the caveat that the Sun also has a real disk and is not a point source of light). However, even a “divide by 2” incoming beam intercept equation does NOT provide an appropriate metric for the lit hemisphere that accounts for how the distribution of this incoming energy heats the Earth’s surface.
Both these forms of the trick equation fail to correctly account for the incoming energy’s “distribution effects” at the Earth’s surface relating to: –
Daily planetary rotation, seasonal axial tilt, curved surface orientation (its areal attitude) and the associated variations in solar beam intensity at the ground caused by the altitude and azimuth of the Sun in the sky.
Philip Mulholland
Good summary. Bookmarked, in a long thread.
Phillip,
The problem with applying the simple form of the Stephan-Boltzmann (S-B) radiation law to a sphere and why such an application leads to physically wrong results is discussed & explained in details in our 2014 paper. It has to do with a math rule called Holder’s inequality between integrals. The effective emission temperature Te calculated from the S-B law for a sphere is a NON-PHYSICAL quantity that has no relationship to actual kinetic surface or atmospheric temperatures. Hence, the 33 K estimate of the “Greenhouse effect” obtained via the S-B formula is physically meaningless:
Volokin & ReLlez (2014): https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
”such an application leads to physically wrong results”
No Ned, experiments prove this is wrong. S-B works fine on spheres in the real world.
Holder is math rule effect only, no effect on using S-B in the real world. When I point my IR thermometer using S-B at a glass of ice water with thermometer, both read 32F. Even if the glass of water is a sphere. S-B works just fine in the real world as it was developed from experiment and then proven with math.
Trick, are you suggesting that the “spherical” errors of a few inch glass of water equates to those of an 8,000mile diameter Earth?
ACO
Over the years I have found it best not to reply to Trick.
His strategy is to fill the thread with trite ‘discussions’ so as to push the important stuff up the thread until nobody bothers to read it any more.
He usually comes in late on threads that are going the ‘wrong’ way and seeks to neutralize them.
I find it odd how often he pops up, as though someone were searching for such threads and then calling him in where needed. Maybe my contributions are being shadowed by some algorithm.
Sadly, the message about the mass induced GHE / ATE will not get out into the mainstream until someone of authority with political ‘clout’ realizes the truth and is prepared to run with it in public.
Probably won’t happen in my remaining lifetime.
Ned Nikolov January 8, 2019 at 5:55 am
Gotta love how Ned cites “Volokin and ReLlez (2014)” as being independent researchers who are supporting his ideas …
… without mentioning that it is nothing but his own paper that he slipped into a scientific journal under an assumed name.
Bad scientist, citing yourself without mentioning that fact … no cookies for you …
w.
“Trick, are you suggesting that the “spherical” errors of a few inch glass of water equates to those of an 8,000mile diameter Earth?”
No! Of course not.
Satellite observations use S-B and their readout & thermometers readout are well enough the same for reasonable results. No need to use Holders with actual observations, only if you are working only with math does Holders raise its ugly head. Even then, it is not much of a big deal. You can get through a first course in atm. thermo. without encountering Holders.
“Sadly, the message about the mass induced GHE / ATE will not get out into the mainstream until someone of authority with political ‘clout’ realizes the truth and is prepared to run with it in public.”
Because mass induced GHE / ATE is not observed. All mass radiates, so any mass induced effect includes radiation in addition to mass motion (convection) which IS observed. Stephen’s imagination is robust and always has all the answers. Stephen is unhindered by observation & relies on a mysterious text book he can’t find or name anymore that he claims to have studied 50-60 years ago. This text book fully explained the mass induced GHE / ATE but has been lost in time unfortunately.
Willis: “Gotta love how Ned cites “Volokin and ReLlez (2014)” as being independent researchers who are supporting his ideas …”
Unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. Nikolov does not claim these are independent researches, and by now everyone knows who they are.
Don132
Don January 8, 2019 at 5:39 pm
First, “everyone” absolutely does NOT know who they are. That’s a crazy statement. There are thousands and thousands of people who read this site. Many, perhaps most, of them had no idea.
And Nikolov is implicitly claiming that they are independent researchers by not saying “here’s a previous paper of mine” …
Why on earth are you defending and justifying his underhanded actions, first in publishing under an alias and then in citing his own work without mentioning that fact?
Gotta say, Don … your reputation on my planet just went down the tubes.
w.
Willis,
Are you just looking for ways to attack your opponents’ characters?
Everything you say may be right except for one thing: I highly doubt it was Nikolov’s intent to deceive anyone by mentioning Volokin and Rellez, and I highly doubt that he intended to imply that they were independent researchers. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and say that from his point of view, everyone up-to-speed on the debate knows who Volokin is.
But everyone happy now? Volokin is Nikolov, and NZ submitted the paper with their names spelled backwards (hello? that’s not a “deception,” that’s a joke) to prove a point: they weren’t getting published not because their science was dodgy, but because their names had been associated with a highly controversial theory.
Don132
Don January 9, 2019 at 2:16 am
There’s no need for that, Ned has done a great job of ruining his own reputation.
I see. Before, your claim was that EVERYONE knows who Volokin is. Now you’ve adopted the circular definition that everyone who is “up to speed on the debate” knows who Volokin is. And how can we tell if someone is “up to speed on the debate”?
Why … they’re up to speed if they know who Volokin is!
And of course he didn’t want anyone to know who he was. He didn’t want his name associated with his ludicrous claims, so he tried to reset the clock by publishing under an assumed name. Perhaps on your planet that’s acceptable. In the world of scientific journals, that’s a big no-no. And when the Editors found out that he was doing that, they decided they didn’t want to publish his work … funny how that works. He lied about his name to try to get published … and then they wouldn’t publish him because he lied about his name.
Karma’s a bitch …
But sure, Don, keep on making endless excuses for Den Volokin. Don’t matter to me, it’s your reputation you’re harming, not mine.
w.
“So, why for the intercepting lit hemisphere, does a “divide by 2” rule also not work? ”
Because Philip a hemisphere is not a disc in regard to thhe angle of incidence of solar radiation.
Have you not noticed that that varies?
A lower angle of incidence means that the same intensity of energy is absorbed over a larger area (less W/m^2)
It is the reason we have seasons.
The area of a sphere is 4(Pi)r^2.
Yes?
The area of a disc is (Pi)r^2.
A factor of 4 smaller.
Solar SW is absorbed over the 4(Pi)r^2 during 24 hours of one rotation.
And not over (Pi)r^2.
“He didn’t want his name associated with his ludicrous claims, so he tried to reset the clock by publishing under an assumed name.”
“Volokin”: that’s how hard he tried to dissociate himself from his claims. No one could possibly associate THAT with Nikolov! And to complete the deception: “Rellez.” Who would ever guess?
We should be focusing on points of science instead of assumptions of character.
Back to the basic science and ideas: how can those who defend ATE say that we know that when we plug in T = PM/Rρ, then pressure is dominant? Those who say that the equation is meaningless because GHGs are implicit in the equation, well, where? Is it in ρ, near-surface atmospheric density? Does the equation assume that GHGs play no part in surface temp in order to prove it?
I admit I’m confused at this point. I’m probably not alone.
Don132
Great to hear it from the horse’s mouth but please, there is no need to characterize anyone’s understanding as “drivel.”
I would be very interested to hear what Ned Nikolov says of Willis’ hypothetical planet.
Don132
Don, same here! Brett
Ned foolishly and incorrectly says that thought experiments can’t ever prove anything, so he’ll just ignore it …
BZZZZT! Next contestant, please!
w.
Stephen:
“If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.
On average you have to keep every molecule at the correct temperature for its height along the entire lapse rate slope otherwise you lose the atmosphere to space. Convection and the conversion of KE to PE with height arranges that for every real world atmosphere.
So, an isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible due to two separate breaches of the Laws of Physics”
I believe Stephen is correct, especially on this point: “If you have a high up molecule with ground level kinetic energy and very little atmospheric weight above to hold it down then the upward pressure gradient force will substantially exceed the downward force of gravity and the molecule will whiz off to space.” That seems to accord with what I know about why our atmosphere stays in place.
So it appears the your planet, although a valid “thought experiment,” isn’t one that accords with physical laws because as Stephen points out, any molecule that had more energy than the force of gravity exerted on it would fly off to space. This would mean that most molecules above near-surface, on an isothermal planet, could escape the force of gravity. An isothermal atmosphere is physically impossible.
Don132
Don132
Molecules do indeed “whiz off to space” in an isothermal atmosphere–as they do in our own atmosphere. It’s just that the number that attain escape velocity is so small that the effect is negligible.
Look, in my view there is indeed a theoretical problem with saying that the equilibrium atmosphere is perfectly isothermal, and in this respect I disagree with Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown; if you dig into the math you find that the isothermal conclusion is actually just an approximation, a limit as energy approaches infinity; perfect isothermality in a finite gas would violate conservation of energy.
But for the temperatures and numbers of molecules that any practical problem will ever involve, the approximation is so exquisitely accurate that whether Dr. Brown is right or I am makes no difference.
Again, that “whiz off to space” argument is not compelling, because we don’t deny that it occurs.
I don’t see it Joe. In our own atmosphere, molecules high up don’t have the same kinetic energy as those lower down; I’m using your own definition, and the accepted definition, that a molecule’s kinetic energy is directly related to its temperature. However, in an isothermal atmosphere, all molecules have the same kinetic energy, and it follows that a good portion will have enough energy to escape the force of the gravitational field at the height they occupy.
Wikipedia: “More generally, escape velocity is the speed at which the sum of an object’s kinetic energy and its gravitational potential energy is equal to zero …. Once escape velocity is achieved, no further impulse need be applied for it to continue in its escape. In other words, if given escape velocity, the object will move away from the other body, continually slowing, and will asymptotically approach zero speed as the object’s distance approaches infinity, never to come back.”
Don132
Perhaps you’re missing the fact that, although the temperature doesn’t decrease with altitude, the concentration decays exponentially, so there are few molecules up there.
Moreover, at any given altitude, the number of molecules having a given kinetic energy similarly decrease with energy, so that for reasonable temperature the proportion at that altitude that have escape velocity is minuscule.
Don132:
Most of what you’re saying about an isothermal atmosphere just isn’t true. For one thing, it’s not true that “all molecules have the same kinetic energy.” Isothermal in this context means only that the mean molecular kinetic energy is the same at every altitude; the energy distribution among individual molecules, on the other hand, is exponential.
Maybe you need to take some time out and read the following plausibility argument for an isothermal atmosphere: https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.14138.
Joe Born:
“Most of what you’re saying about an isothermal atmosphere just isn’t true.”
So, it depends on what we mean by “isothermal.”
Don’t have time to read your link now but it’s an interesting puzzle.
But glancing at it … I don’t really think it matters if the mean distribution of kinetic energy is the same but individual molecules vary. What this means is that some molecules will definitely achieve escape velocity (because much more than average kinetic energy) and these will be replaced by other molecules, so on and so on, as we continually lose molecules at the top of atmosphere, and it seems we wouldn’t have much atmosphere left after that.
In Willis’ planet, it hardly seems likely, given the conditions, that the molecules would vary that much in kinetic energy. Everything is, by design, so much the same.
But, that’s just my first stab at it.
Don132
If Willis’ planet is physically impossible because the atmosphere would fly off if all molecules had the same kinetic energy, as Stephen pointed out, then that refutes Willis’ refutation of the ATE theory.
We can’t argue about physical principles using a planet that violates physical principles. That makes no sense.
Don132
The fact that some molecules “whiz off to space” does not make Mr. Eschenbach’s model physically impossible. As I just said, molecules “whiz off to space” from our own, real-world planet, a planet that most of us consider physically possible.
The molecules at the top of an isothermal atmosphere have tremendous kinetic energy compared to the force of gravity, which is very weak at the top of the atmosphere. As the molecules at the top of an isothermal atmosphere whiz off to space, they are replaced by other molecules that have the exact same kinetic energy, and they whiz off to space as well, and so on.
Don132
And the mass continues to reduce.
First, Joe Born is right as usual—the entire atmosphere would not “fly off”. That’s just more of Stephen’s attempts to prove the unprovable. Atmosphere loss is a function of the size and density of the planetary body, which is why the atmosphere of Mars is so thin and why asteroids have no atmosphere.
Second, I just have to shake my head at how some people state untrue things with such calm aplomb. For example, this howler:
Don January 8, 2019 at 2:42 am
Gravity falls off as one over the square of the distance. If we take surface gravity on earth as having a value of 1.0, then at an altitude of say a hundred kilometres, up around the top of the atmosphere, the gravity up there would have the value of 0.97 … hardly “very weak”.
w.
I’ll repeat my latest comment here for maximum visibility:
The clincher is this:
Willis’s model seeks to remove convective overturning so as to create an isothermal atmosphere. The temperature is the same from top to bottom in his model but the type of energy contained by each molecule still varies between KE and PE as one goes up along the lapse rate slope.
Since it is the change in the type of energy that creates a temperature decline with height then you obviously cannot prevent convective overturning and as soon as you introduce that you get the ATE.
So, Willis inadvertently proves the gravitationalists’ case.
For a completely non radiative atmosphere the only difference between no ATE and an ATE is convective overturning.
Radiation doesn’t come into it so when one introduces radiation as an additional parameter you have to consider a whole raft of different issues but they appear to be irrelevant to the presence or absence of the ATE.
Nice to see Ned weighing in here, I was feeling a bit lonely.
Ned’s discovery is perfectly correct but it needs my description to explain it and Willis has accidentally proved me and Ned to be correct entirely contrary to Roy Spencer’s opinion.
Ned, thanks for being so clear about adiabatic processes. I’ve been banging my head against a brick wall over that since around 2007. Even renowned climate scientists seem to be completely ignorant of the process and its implications.
Stephen, pumping a bicycle tire quickly increasing its internal P is an adiabatic process, the tire/pump temperature increases as no energy equilibrium with the surroundings in/out is established quickly. Then a diabatic process ensues to return to normal equilibrium with surroundings when the pumping ceases.
In your imaginary atm. convective process, there is no entity to do the continual pumping. Atlas isn’t doing it either. The adiabatic pumping process exists only in your imagination not the real world.
There is no diabatic component to the ongoing cycle of decompression and compression within an atmosphere otherwise it is not truly adiabatic.
The bicycle tyre analogy is flawed because it only allows half the process which does enable diabatic leakage to offset that half.
I don’t think you are going to get far with the suggestion that there is no convective overturning in atmospheres. No ‘entity’ is required other than density variations in the horizontal plane at the surface or within the body of the atmosphere.
“I don’t think you are going to get far with the suggestion that there is no convective overturning in atmospheres.”
I will get far as there isn’t anything like that actually observed, your use of “overturning” is flawed, imaginary. Just enter “convection” into a youtube search engine and observe what really happens to rising colums of fluid warmed from below in a gravity field. No downward columns form just upward columns.
Trick January 7, 2019 at 9:23 pm
“Stephen, pumping a bicycle tire quickly increasing its internal P is an adiabatic process, the tire/pump temperature increases as no energy equilibrium with the surroundings in/out is established quickly. Then a diabatic process ensues to return to normal equilibrium with surroundings when the pumping ceases.
In your imaginary atm. convective process, there is no entity to do the continual pumping. Atlas isn’t doing it either. The adiabatic pumping process exists only in your imagination not the real world.”
Reply
Stephen Wilde January 7, 2019 at 9:48 pm
“There is no diabatic component to the ongoing cycle of decompression and compression within an atmosphere otherwise it is not truly adiabatic.
The bicycle tyre analogy is flawed because it only allows half the process which does enable diabatic leakage to offset that half.”
I think part of the problem regards the heat sink for the atmosphere. Where is it? If you compress the lower atmosphere through pressure, how does the heat dissipate? The surface atmosphere is right up against the surface all around, and gravity is exerting a downward force all around– continuously. Gravity never stops. So whatever heat sink there is, it doesn’t seem to have nearly the same capacity as the heat sink (which is the entire atmosphere) surrounding the bicycle tire and yes, someone (gravity) is “pumping” the atmosphere continuously.
Don132
Don, part of that absence of a heat sink is the fact that surely to be Isothermal the Gas would also have to be Density Homogeneous as well. How can 3 molecules per cubic metre of gas at the top of the atmosphere have the same temperature as 3 billion molecules per cubic metre at the surface?
Isn’t the reason the gas is hotter is because it is denser?
Don, is the theory that the heat sink is the Planet’s Surface and that is what dissipates the energy to space?
Odd how Stars are formed by Gravity and burn due to density and it also controls their Temperature as well.
Don
The heat sink is the potential energy reservoir that holds the atmosphere off the surface. Thus it comprises the potential energy content of the entire atmosphere.
Decompression in ascending air replenishes it as fast as compression in descending air dissipates it.
The pumping action is simply density variations in the horizontal plane leading to convection.
There is no entity to do the “pumping”. The compression pump needed for Stephen’s and N&Z adiabatic heating doesn’t exist in nature.
Convective fluid is observed to rise up in a well enough defined column heated from below in a gravity field. Fluid replacing the rising fluid moves in laterally at the surface at the same T and same pressure just like at the top of the column where the fluid spreads out mostly laterally & disperses energy. That atm. process is not imaginary, it is real & what is observed.
Don writes: ”someone (gravity) is “pumping” the atmosphere continuously.”
If you put a large enough weight on top of the bicycle handle to force it down, gravity alone can make that happen (mgh). Gravity alone does not force the handle to go back up continuously for adiabatic heating process like a person fixing a flat tire.
…bicycle pump handle …
I can now more precisely describe the role of pressure.
A non radiative cloud of gas outside a gravity field will be almost all potential energy beimg at the temperature of space.
Applying pressure forces molecules closer together thereby converting PE to KE and the temperature rises.
Wrap it around a rocky planet using the force of gravity and the density gradient sorts the molecules so that they are closest together at the base.
Pressure at the base squeezes KE out of PE to generate heat.
The more pressure, the more KE can be derived from the gas at the surface.
The density gradient then determines the angle of the lapse rate slope and the lapse rate slope inevitably induces convection which prevents the KE at the bottom from dissipating by constantly renewing in a recycling process.
Stephen:
“I can now more precisely describe the role of pressure.”
I suppose that precision on your part was what I was looking for. I’m in the process of reading new comments but I think we’re all getting warmer and to the heart of the matter– namely, where the key misunderstanding is.
As it gets closer to the bone we can all be civil about it; no need to descend into name-calling of any sort. We’re all good people here, but obviously there’s some confusion somewhere that we’re trying to cut through.
Don132
“Applying pressure forces molecules closer..”
There is no entity in the atm. that applies the pressure to force anything like the person pumping the bicycle handle in the real process of adiabatic heating. Stephen is not a realist doing experiments or observations, Stephen just imagines processes to suit his purposes. This is why Stephen has failed to be convincing since 2007.
I’m wondering if a clearer way of looking at things to bring out the main issues wouldn’t be to imagine what would happen if the sun were to suddenly go out. What would happen next? How much energy is locked in the system? How would this energy dissipate? And what would happen to the atmosphere and climate? I think that depending on whether you opt for the gravitationists, or the CO2 greenhouseists the answers will be different.
Also regarding the original paper at the heart of all this do the greenhouse contingent agree or disagree with the idea that the atmospheric warming is much greater than currently appreciated? Do they agree that the modified way of calculating the S-B temperature of an atmosphereless planet is an improvement on current ways of calculating it?
We are going off at various tangents again.
Refer back to Willis’s unreal and impossible model. It is still useful.
It proposes no convection which results in an isothermal atmosphere because conduction takes over from convection and the lapse rate disappears as heat is conducted upward from molecule to molecule. There is no ATE.
Then switch convection back on again.
The lapse rate will reappear as a result of the up and down movement switching KE to PE in rising areas and PE to KE in falling areas. As the lapse rate returns so will the ATE.
We can use Willis’s own model on his terms and demonstrate that convection up and down within a gravitational field is the cause of an ATE without resort to GHGs.
Willis has proved it for us.
Yes you’re right. Let’s stick to Willis’ model. I agree it could amount to a nice reductio ad absurdum.
I think you have made two good arguments to that effect that are yet to be refuted.
Although on Ned’s side he has yet to answer Willis’ challenge to run his calcs over the two celestial bodies that Willis claims don’t fit his theory.
But what about this second bit? Ned’s paper. After all their paper is at the heart of all this is it not? Is there any agreement between the two sides here on the basic calculations? Could this revolve around something to do with the role of the magnetosphere in modulating solar effects? Are we talking about planets without an atmosphere, or planets without both an atmosphere and a magnetosphere? This would presumably have a big impact on where you start out when adding ATE would it not? The moon has only a very weak magnetosphere. Although the CO2ists should answer your challenge first though.
This thread is over a week old and now has attracted 1,428 comments to date. There are now 49 posts above it but it is unlikely to attract new viewers because the side banner on this blog no-longer shows a list of recent comments.
Too true.
Just as we have got to the nub of the problem with Willis’s model.
Maybe Anthony might consider a new thread inviting comments on my description. No objector here in nearly 1500 posts has specified any flaw in the physics or in the logic.
Or Anthony could start a new thread inviting comments on Willis’s conceptual model rather than taking it as a proof of a disputed issue even before the thread opens.
“No objector here in nearly 1500 posts has specified any flaw in the physics or in the logic.”
Incorrect, that is only in Stephen’s imagination. Both N&Z and Stephen fail 1LOT in their description of adiabatic heating in a free atm. as is the top post point. There is no entity to pump the handle up and down repeatedly as in a bicycle tire pump process for their imagined atm. adiabatic heating process. Pressure alone can not do so.
Do you mean on Mr Eschenbach’s imaginary world?
Or in the real universe?
I mean the real world. Perfom your own observations in the real world, better to be a realist, don’t use Stephen’s imagination, or even N&Z or Willis or mine. Observation is what makes science work not anyone’s imagination. Classrom courses have lab courses attached.
Elon can imagine getting to Mars, observed science has to make it work. Galileo imagined things, but had to climb the stairs and drop the stuff. Stephen’s writing is pure imagination since 2007.
Unfortunately “Class Room Courses” have been teaching the wrong stuff about many things for years.
So what Lab courses prove that there is no recharging of the adiabatic process in the real world?
Because I am sure that I can read about them on the web somewhere.
Trick, actually, don’t bother because we had this discussion a year or 2 ago on one of the Slayer type threads and you didn’t convince me then so I don’t think you will now.
There are just too many inconsistencies for me and whne the so called keepers of the science have to fudge the data it really weakens their cause.
If the real world observations don’t convince A C, there is nothing useful that will convince A C. A C’s comments are then imaginative at best.
”So what Lab courses prove that there is no recharging of the adiabatic process in the real world?”\
All lab courses get results/conclusions from data taken in a real-world process. If whatever is meant by your “no recharging of the adiabatic process” A C can prove its accuracy in a proper lab.
One last comment before I take care of business today.
Overall, I find it hard to believe that pressure is just sitting there waiting to function on behalf of the lapse rate. This is an intuitive belief, and I admit it. Atmospheric surface pressure is huge and I compare it to the weight of 20 grand pianos/m2. I’ve moved pianos; they’re way heavy.
As Holmes pointed out, pressure calculations are used to determine mine temperatures, and although I’m not re-reading that now my bet is that there’re no terms for radiative effects. Yet those who hold that radiative effects rule continually invoke pressure in the form of the lapse rate to make their theory work.
There’s been no definitive proof that the ATE is correct– by that I mean there’s no logical conundrum presented that forces a conclusion one way or another; my guess is that the logical conundrum exists, but we haven’t discovered it just yet.
The simple question seems to be, without invoking PE and KE, how does pressure make for a surface atmosphere temperature above BB? I know Stephen will complain that you need PE and KE but my question is how do we get to KE in the first place, to get the whole things working? Maybe we’re back to the bicycle tire analogy again and that’s OK; I believe we need to dig down and sort it out. How does it work? It works for Chinook winds and everyone understands that, but how does it work under constant pressure?
Somewhere there’s a simple and precise way to state what’s at issue. When we find that key point then we can argue in detail and maybe sort it out.
Don132
“It works for Chinook winds..”
Yes that’s observed local adiabatic warming process. They are local process, dissipate the energy spreading it out & are not global. Try to find an observation to understand the process.
Don, when you return you may like to read this post to increase your knowledge about how simplistic the CO2 GHG theory is compared to how the Atmosphere actually works.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
Unfortunately one of the links no longer works as it is an old post.
Thanks for the link.
Don132
Trick,
Is the Hadley Cell big enough for you?
The hadley cell is not a chinook wind.
So what is your understanding of a Hadley Cell?
Just google string: hadley cell
& look for real world observations which then should equal yours, Willis’, N&Z’ and my understanding.
You get to KE in the first place via solar heating of the surface.
You get to PE at the end of ascent.
Back to KE at the end of the descent.
Go back to Willis’s model which has no convection no lapse rate and no ATE.
Just switch on convection.
The rising air creates a pool of cool high PE air at the top and falling air creates a pool of warm high KE air at the bottom.
You will observe a lapse rate developing from top to bottom due to the high level cooling and low level warming.
The ATE arises as the lapse rate slope develops.
That is as simple as it gets.
No convection = no ATE
Convection = ATE.
What else is needed ?
Come on Trick, don’t be shy. Tell me in your own words what your understanding of a Hadley Cell is.
”Back to KE at the end of the descent.”
Only in your imagination Stephen. No descent column is ever observed.
In real life there is no descent column as demonstrations show for a fluid warmed from below, there is a fairly well-defined column rising, but that column mushrooms out at the top and spreads out when the column excess warming T equalizes with surroundings & hydrostatic.
Fluid flows in from the bottom at the same temperature and pressure before the uneven warming happened. Again, see youtube search: convection
You have to do experiments with convection to learn what happens Stephen, convection is way too messy for your imagination.
—-
”Tell me in your own words what your understanding of a Hadley Cell is”.
Already did, my words would be found exactly from just google string: hadley cell
Hadley cells are messy. You can get through a whole first course in atm. thermodynamics & atm. radiation without having to deal with them. I observe this long comment string does not contain many who have even done that, I suggest leave Hadley cells for grad. school.
Ah Trick, that’s so sweet. So, you won’t tell you what know in case I find something wrong with it.
You must be a climate scientist.
Ok. Phil, I’m willing to fill in my education on hadley cells. Tell my what is a hadley cell, in your own words. Be prepared, I’ll compare them to what I find using google string: hadley cell
No Trick, that’s not how the game is played, it’s turn and turnabout.
So, take a deep breath, gently does it, in your own words. Off you go.
Phil, by now you should have understood I’m playing no game, Hadley cells aren’t of interest to me – they are easy to google. Hadley circulation adds and subtracts equal amount of thermodynamic internal energy to the surface globally over 4-12+ annual periods as observed with no effect on surface temperatures. All they do is move energy around within the system. Again, in my own words google string: Hadley cell
Or in my own words go to your local college librarian or amazon.com to find what my own words would be on Hadley cells, search string: Hadley cell
In my own words: I play no game, knock yourself out.
Don,
“There’s been no definitive proof that the ATE is correct..”
.
Have you read my papers/above posts?
The so-called ‘lapse rate’ IS the thermal enhancement (or what some mistakenly call the ‘greenhouse effect’).
There aren’t TWO thermal enhancements, there is only one, and it’s caused by solar-powered convection and gravity-powered auto-compression.
The two proofs that the thermal enhancement is NOT caused by any radiatve greenhouse effect is contained in the fact that there is no measured anomalous warming from the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ on any planetary body, and in the fact that the Ideal gas law and its derivatives forbid any special class of gases.
Robert, the GHE is not the lapse rate. The lapse rate is only a slope. To get the intercept of temperature at the surface T(0), you will need to perform a radiative-convective equilibrium balance at P=surface. That equilibrium is a function of illumination, total surface pressure, mixing ratios of the absorbing gas species and their mass extinction coefficients (i.e. atm. opacity).
Holmes:
“The two proofs that the thermal enhancement is NOT caused by any radiative greenhouse effect is contained in the fact that there is no measured anomalous warming from the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ on any planetary body, and in the fact that the Ideal gas law and its derivatives forbid any special class of gases.”
But as has been pointed out many times, the gas laws don’t specify where the heat is coming from, and if atmospheric heat is due to GHGs then that would naturally be reflected in the ideal gas law. So I don’t think that’s any proof. If the ATE theory is indeed correct, then there must be a proof that it and it alone can raise the BB temp of a planet.
In re-reading your paper I find nothing that states the exact mechanism for increased KE at the surface, and that seems to be the issue. That pressure establishes the thermal gradient I don’t think is in dispute, but that the mechanism for the starting KE above what would be expected from the BB temp is what I think is missing. To say that this is due to adiabatic auto-compression only explains the lapse rate; I don’t think it explains the heat content of the atmosphere as a whole, whereas the radiative GHE does account for the heat in the atmosphere above BB. If this radiative effects are too weak or are immediately countered by convective effects, that may be so but I think this is conjecture as opposed to proof. The only proof, I think, would be in the demonstration that initial KE must be due to pressure.
Have NZ included radiative effects in their dimensional analysis? I don’t see that they have. But for that matter, is there any universal formula such that given “x” amount of GHG and any other factors, we then get surface temperature? If there is, what is it? If there isn’t, then shouldn’t there be one?
But the bottom line is, given adiabatic auto-compression, how would that necessarily raise the temperature of the surface atmosphere above BB? In the PE/KE account, how do you get the initial KE required? From the sun, yes, but how does that necessarily raise above BB temp?
Don132
Recycling of the potential energy store in the atmosphere explains the surface temperature rise.
When convection starts it creates the lapse rate slope by putting more PE at the top for a cooling effect and more KE at the bottom for a warming effect, that gives the thermal gradient.
You then have to realise that solar input continues as before but once recycling begins nothing is then being taken from the surface to support convection.
Thus you get the full effect from continuing insolation PLUS the extra energy at the surface needed to keep convection running.
It is a simple accounting issue.
Don
“..as has been pointed out many times, the gas laws don’t specify where the heat is coming from..”
.
Yes, and it is I who have (many times) pointed this out.
What is your point here?
My paper shows that the way to rule out a GHG warming is that it is possible to use the molar mass version of the ideal gas law to discover what is NOT causing a temperature change.
How this is done is detailed in the paper;
i.e. If there is a GHE from a GHG then it MUST cause an anomalous change in density, pressure or both.
If no anomalous change in these two are seen then there is no GHE and no such thing as GHG.
.
“..the mechanism for the starting KE above what would be expected from the BB temp is what I think is missing. To say that this is due to adiabatic auto-compression only explains the lapse rate.”
.
But the ‘lapse rate’ IS the THERMAL GRADIENT/ENHANCEMENT which some call the ‘greenhouse effect’!
How can I be more clear?
The mechanism for the production of ‘extra’ kinetic energy in a thick atmosphere has been detailed ad-nausea already. You want it detailed again?
.
“..the radiative GHE does account for the heat in the atmosphere above BB. ”
.
This statement is like pointing to a speck in my eye when there is a beam in your own. A warming atmosphere must comply with the gas laws and expand. An expanding gas cools. Therefore no warming can possibly result from any GHG forcing.
Surface gas temperatures are not determined by a greenhouse effect; they are determined by insolation and auto-compression.
.
“In the PE/KE account, how do you get the initial KE required? ”
.
From the gas laws; they demand it.
”When convection starts it creates the lapse rate slope by putting more PE at the top for a cooling effect and more KE at the bottom for a warming effect, that gives the thermal gradient.”
Not observed Stephen. Convection is nowhere observed putting “more KE at the bottom for a warming effect” because there is nothing pumping the bicycle pump handle up & back down repeatedly in the real world for your ill-advised version of adiabatic warming.
Convection is observed to stop when the T and density of the convected particles equalize with the surroundings somewhere up the column. Which creates mostly hydrostatic atm. along the lapse The rising air is replaced laterally at the bottom of the column.
It is a simple meteorological issue.
”If there is a GHE from a GHG then it MUST cause an anomalous change in density, pressure or both.”
Robert 6:34pm, the gas laws are satisfied with the surface of an IR ~transparent atm. in balance at 255K. The gas laws are also satisfied at 288K with today’s atm. IR opacity. So your statement is false, a GHG must NOT have to cause an anomalous change in density, pressure or both.
”But the ‘lapse rate’ IS the THERMAL GRADIENT/ENHANCEMENT which some call the ‘greenhouse effect’!”
The lapse is a rate not a temperature. You merely put up a strawman with which to fight for no purpose. Your strawman has no bearing on the actual atm. opacity effects on surface temperature (aka GHE).
”A warming atmosphere must comply with the gas laws and expand. An expanding gas cools. Therefore no warming can possibly result from any GHG forcing.”
Earth atm. expands and contracts daily. The 33K is unaffected. No total system warming can possibly result from any GHG forcing but the global surface T can be warmed by atm. opacity increases as upper atm. equally cools by the same effect.
Trick,
Your reply is laughable in its complete ignorance. You said;
.
“a GHG must NOT have to cause an anomalous change in density, pressure or both.”
.
The existence of a GHG, or any change in the concentration of a GHG simply HAS to cause an anomalous change in density or pressure – if the GHE exists.
This is detailed in my latest paper, which if you have read, you certainly have not understood.
In the case of a doubling of CO2 to 0.08% in the Earth’s atmosphere, the anomalous effect HAS to happen.
If the climate sensitivity is 3C (ECS) as claimed by the IPCC, then the anomalous change in pressure (if pressure alone changes) would be of the order of 25x.
In the case of density, (if density alone changes) the anomalous change would have to be of the order 23x.
.
” …the gas laws are satisfied with the surface of an IR ~transparent atm. in balance at 255K. The gas laws are also satisfied at 288K with today’s atm. IR opacity. ”
.
Who said they aren’t?
This is too embarrassing, you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about on this subject.
.
“The lapse is a rate not a temperature… ”
.
Of course it is. It is a THERMAL GRADIENT/ENHANCEMENT of 6.5c/km in the troposphere.
Give up now before you have us all in fits of laughter at you and your total and sheer ignorance here.
Holmes:
“If there is a GHE from a GHG then it MUST cause an anomalous change in density, pressure or both.
If no anomalous change in these two are seen then there is no GHE and no such thing as GHG.”
But if there is a GHE from GHG then it will not only cause a change in density or pressure or both (simply by virtue of adding GHG molecules) but also raise the temperature, and if it raises the temperature then it must affect density and pressure, as you’ve just stated. So I guess the question to you is, if the radiative GHE were real, would the heating it caused not raise the density and/or pressure of the atmosphere? Is that what you’re saying?
“But the ‘lapse rate’ IS the THERMAL GRADIENT/ENHANCEMENT which some call the ‘greenhouse effect’! ”
The lapse rate can be the lapse rate even if the radiative GHE is true. No one argues that the lapse rate is due to pressure, but how can it cause thermal enhancement? Your proof, above, must be correct; then it would make perfect sense that the enhancement of surface T reflected in the lapse rate is due to pressure.
Don132
Holmes 2:05am: ”The existence of a GHG, or any change in the concentration of a GHG simply HAS to cause an anomalous change in density or pressure – if the GHE exists.”
There is no anomalous change in density or pressure Robert, the change in global surface T from 255K to 288K by increasing atm. opacity is fully explained, not anomalous. The GHE exists simply from comparing Earth and Venus planetary disk brightness temperatures to their global surface temperatures. The thing in between causes the difference.
On Venus, NASA measured the density (by radio signal occultation) at 1bar which data includes Venus’ full atm. opacity (GHE) & their full Venus GHE data is as used in your paper. So, of course your paper uses the full GHE of Venus to calculate the gas law at 1bar as detailed in your latest paper.
”In the case of a doubling of CO2 to 0.08% in the Earth’s atmosphere, the anomalous effect HAS to happen.”
Nothing anomalous about that, it’s very nomalous.
”If the climate sensitivity is 3C (ECS) as claimed by the IPCC, then the anomalous change in pressure (if pressure alone changes) would be of the order of 25x.”
Pressure alone does not change, there are 3 variables, all change as a function of z height.
”Who said they aren’t?”
Robert Holmes says so as Robert Holmes mistakenly calls them “anomalous”. And a thermal gradient is not a temperature Robert, it is a slope. Try a little harder to understand y=mx+b where b is a temperature and m is a gradient NOT a temperature.
“There is no entity to pump the handle up and down repeatedly.. ”
.
What do you think the Sun is doing all the time?
It’s injecting energy into our atmosphere!
Robert:
That is one end of the cycle – the rising part.
It requires that air completes the cycle.
By returning to the surface.
Gravity does NOT do it.
“That is one end of the cycle – the rising part.
It requires that air completes the cycle.
By returning to the surface.
Gravity does NOT do it.”
.
So air goes up and never comes down?
Gravity does not affect air?
Are you kidding?
Don’t you know that what goes up must come down?
This is getting beyond ridiculous; are you guys really scientists?
Good point Anthony; Robert doesn’t understand the atm. is mostly in hydrostatic equilibrium, very little available PE to convert into KE. The sun is in close radiative equilibrium with TOA and surface. There is no entity to pump Earth atm. handle up and down repeatedly for adiabatic surface warming like the bicycle tire pump handle forced up and down.
Robert 7:11pm asks: ”So air goes up and never comes down?”
Air warmed from below in a gravity field goes up until it equilibrates with surroundings. If air is not equilibrated and denser than surroundings, the air will come down. Earth atm. is by and large hydrostatic so look up what is meant by static.
”Gravity does not affect air?”
Air has mass so gravity affects air.
”Are you kidding? Don’t you know that what goes up must come down? ”
What Earth air is buoyant will go up, until it equilibrates with surroundings; what air is not equilibrated and denser than surroundings will come down.
If this was anything but a contrived exercise, it would be agreed by now among scientifically-educated participants that the empirical evidence wins. That is, Gas Laws, Solar System and experimental data from Tyndall through Wood to Hartmann and Klein etc etc.. Maxwell’s work (see Hockeyschtick) and modern Photonics eg Allmendinger who found only UHI behind Temperature increases.
But no, this is not a real debate but a contrivance. We see thought experiments taken as evidential data and pushed as gospel. Such thinking belongs in the realms of thought processes affected by plant and fungal metabolites. Which evolved to twist the mental processes of plants’ main predators, that is our own Animal Kingdom. Pity those affected, rather than give them a lectern…… Brett
Hold a bully pulpit while you can. Just expect the inevitable fate of all such. And know this, that N and Z are just two of many. Where have some folk been the last fifteen years? The real enemy is the academic marxism of Strong, Orestes, Edenhoffer etc. who would destroy us.
“There is no entity in the atm. that applies the pressure to force anything like the person pumping the bicycle handle in the real process of adiabatic heating. ”
Exactly.
Gravity acts to pull air down.
Until the air can compress no more.
Then the atmosphere is in balance between density and gravity.
The cyclist has stopped pumping his tyre.
The LR is set by vertical air motion (there are other processes besides convection that do that).
On ascent air will stop when either it has reached the same temp as the surround atmosphere or the ‘push” from below runs out of CAPE (convection bursts through the tropopause in the Tropics and elsewhere often even though it is colder).
That CAPE is gained from latent heat release in the rising parcel.
In that case it will sink under its own weight (not buoyant).
Otherwise air will converge aloft.
AND spread sideways NOT down.
In the equatorial Hadley cell it gets deflected to the right and converges into the sub-tropical jet (~30N/S) where it is forced to sink. At the surface that air returns to the ITCZ as the NE trades.
That is a zero sum process when LH processes are removed.
Otherwise we would have a continually heating process (its gone round in a circle and by Stephen, been heated, whereby (presumably) gravity is utilised until radiative cooling balances.
Gravity cannot be a source of perpetual energy, obviously (it should be). Gravity gets its effect from mass and thus mass would have to shrink to supply said energy otherwise.
Other than horizontal convergence and the Coriolis force there is NO out of balance force acting on a parcel of air in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
It is buoyant.
One of the first things taught at Met school.
As Newton’s First Law of Motion states.
The PE of buoyant air aloft is a red-herring.
Yes, it is in a gravity field.
But it cannot be realised by gravity.
Another force is needed to move air vertically.
Vertical motion in the atmosphere is energy zero-sum,
It sets the LR and does not magic heat from gravity.
Sorry, but it beggars belief that can be believed, with proper meteorological knowledge in place.
Like I said somewhere above Stephen you don’t have that knowledge.
(I speak as a retired UKMO meteorologist)
“The density gradient then determines the angle of the lapse rate slope and the lapse rate slope inevitably induces convection which prevents the KE at the bottom from dissipating by constantly renewing in a recycling process.”
Yes, but the rising air (no LH process) loses exactly the same heat as it gained on descent.
A reversible process.
To whit it gets back to same point at the same temp it started at.
Gravity and density are in balance.
That is when the cyclist has stopped pumping.
You seem to be imaging a constant pumping action whereby gravity is the cyclists arm on the pump.
No, because it acts on the air parcel but it CANNOT move it.
The air moves because of forces other than gravity.
Convection/convergence (mainly but not always at the surface) and isentropic up-gliding and cyclogenesis due to divergence/divergence aloft.
And LH release aloft causes a parcel to become MORE buoyant.
Gravity is but a passive bystander to weather.
It did it’s bit long ago.
Sorry.
Meteorology.
You really haven’t read my description have you ?
Which stage do you consider to be incorrect ?
Stephen:
The nonsense that air having risen via convection, falls back to the surface under the “push” of gravity.
No, something else “pushes” it.
Air is buoyant unless acted upon by dynamical forces.
The atmosphere is in vertical balance otherwise between gravity and molecular density.
It will stay where it is UNLESS acted upon by dynamical forces.
The main one at the top being convergence.
Anthony
I never mentioned gravity pushing anything.
Denser air, being heavier than less dense air around it drops of its own accord
But it makes no difference why it falls. The fact is that it falls and releases KE as it does so.
So you have not shown anything in my description to be inaccurate.
My narrative would be just as correct if the descent were caused solely by convergence.
“The fact is that it falls and releases KE as it does so.”
Rising air that equilbrates in T and desnity at the top with the surroundings doesn’t fall Stephen, the process you describe exists only in your imagination. There are no descending columns as the atm. is largely hydrostatic after the rising air was replaced at the bottom of the column. You are wrong & inconsistent with observation but are too stubborn to admit it.
“Denser air, being heavier than less dense air around it drops of its own accord”
Stephen, that is because gravity is ‘pushing’ (pulling) it down.
The energy is provided by virtue of being within a gravitational field.
The definition of PE.
The cold air is not using its own energy in order to fall.
Gravity provides that.
Hence gravity is not “pumping” the atmosphere continually.
No Gravity is not pumping the Atmospere, but by your description Solar Insolation in combinaion with Gravity is.
Solar pumps it up which also cools it and Gravity pulls it back down which warms it again, in the mean time the surface continues warming all the time the sun shines.
Presumably the whole Atmosphere has expanded slightly, when it cools at night it must contract again.
Is not the expansion (less dense) and contraction(more dense) a form of work.
Of course due to the “quiet sun” the Atmosphere has had a long term contraction, so it should be slightly denser.
But it appears that the Atmosphere also breaths at the top in 3 day to 1 month cycles of expansion and contraction which also causes energy exchanges.
Who new?
A form of Perpetual motion ideed.
A C, the “pumping” you describe does come from solar, the atm. does expand during the daylight from the previous night. However, you cannot use solar for N&Z pumping as eqn. 10a only has pressure. For N&Z purposes, you have to explain the pumping in terms of the pressure variable only in 10a (and Fig. 4.) as the solar does not vary in it.
“The cyclist has stopped pumping his tyre….”
.
You guys are really too funny!
Even denying obvious facts such as that atmospheric circulation and convection exists in order to preserve the fictitious GHE.
Too sad.
Atmospheric circulation and convection exists in harmony with the atm. IR opacity (aka GHE), they help well mix the added GHG ppm. There is no purpose served denying these observations, that is only a strawman suggested by a saddened Robert.
AB: Just insane, like Trick. You ignore the Sun. Please go back to sleep. UK Met Office just goes wronger with each larger Supercomputer. You demonstrate why. Brett
Err, Brett.
The Sun provides the energy within the whole climate system, which gravity balances.
Yes, that comment was insane BTW.
Whatever your misconceptions about meteorology and NWP modelling,
I and they know that.
Any more hand-waving perchance.
Oh, and Brett – I see you seem to think you know meteorology.
Re your question above to Trick.
Do tell us what a Hadley cell is and how they form and function.
I’m all ears ( and meteorology text books are primed for a rewrite, not to mention NWP modellers).
Cue more rage induced incoherence from a MetO hater.
Ned Nikolov January 8, 2019 at 5:55 am
For a change, this time Ned is right about the 33K estimate … but for the wrong reasons.
The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law can indeed be applied to a sphere. It’s a Law, not just a good idea. But applying it to a real Earth is, as Dr. Robert Brown aptly put it, a “damn hard problem” … just not for the reasons that Ned claims.
These days we commonly use “stand-off” infrared thermometers to measure temperatures from a distance. They work by applying the S-B law. Here’s a typical unit.
According to Ned’s claim above, these only work on flat surfaces, but not on spheres … riiight …
w.
Willis,
I don’t think Ned is saying S-B doesn’t apply to spheres. He is saying that many people incorrectly calculate the temperature of the sphere from the energy that it is receiving. He describes the ratio between the area of the disc (cross section of the earth) compared to the surface of the earth as being 1:4 which it obviously is. He then describes the ‘normal’ S-B based calculation of the earth’s temperature where one divides the average TOA energy by 4 to get the average energy per square meter of the earth’s surface and then take the fourth root of that to derive the average temperature of the earth. Ned says you should first calculate the energy received on every point on the earth’s surface then take fourth root of all those different results to get temperature of every point on the earth’s surface and then average those temperatures … which will give a different answer. He is not saying that IR emission and absorbtion doesn’t exist.
Your example of an IR meter doesn’t prove him ‘wrong’. I’m sure he has no problem with those as they are not based on taking the average fourth root of a sphere’s temperature so won’t be using either of those calculation methods. The IR meters are designed to receive an energy signal from a flat surface so won’t be using any sphere temperature calculations.
A simplified example:
The square root of 9 = 3
The square root of 4 = 2
The average of 3 and 2 is 2.5
But
The average of 9 and 4 is 6.5 The square root of 6.5 is 2.55
Ned is saying that when calculating the average temperatures of spheres, the second method is incorrect.
Thanks, Bernard. I’ve never understood just why Ned thinks this is important.
In any case, energy flux IS conserved. Temperature IS NOT conserved. Therefore, you have to average BEFORE you convert to temperature by taking the fourth root.
In other words, your recommended procedure (first calculate temperatures then average the temperatures) is guaranteed to give a wrong answer.
For example. Suppose we have a very thin plate of silver, which conducts heat very, very quickly. It receives 240 W/m2 on one side and 480 W/m2 on the other side. What will be the temperature of the plate?
If we calculate the temperature on each side separately as you say Ned recommends, we get -18°C on one side and 30°C on the other side. This gives an average of the temperatures to be 6°C.
But here’s the thing. We know that on average the plate has to be radiating 360 W/m2, because energy flux is conserved—it is receiving an average of 360 W/m2 so it has to radiate the same.
And a radiation of 360 W/m2 corresponds to an S-B temperature of 9°C …
There is a deeper problem with averaging temperatures. This relates to the difference between intensive and extensive properties. Temperature is an INTENSIVE property. Mass is an EXTENSIVE property. Suppose we have two glasses, each containing a kilo of water at 17°C. We pour them together, and we end up with two times one kilo = two kilos of water.
But when we pour them together, we do NOT get two times 17° = 34° of water … in fact, adding temperatures together has no physical meaning. Temperature is intensive. Here’s a definition:
Extensive properties like mass or volume depend on the EXTENT of the object. Bigger objects have bigger volumes and bigger masses. We can physically add them together – four two-litre jugs of water equals one eight-litre jug of water, and that is a real physical quantity.
But four jugs at 15°C do NOT equal one jug at 60°C … that has no physical meaning.
Now consider the average. We add up the items to get the total, and divide by the number of items. The average of three litres, five litres, and seven litres is fifteen litres divided by three items equals five litres.
But as shown above, ADDING TEMPERATURES IS MEANINGLESS! We can add 3°C plus 5°C plus 7°C and that gives us a total temperature of 15°C … say what?
Sorry, but there’s no physical reality in that. You can’t average intensive quantities.
So if Ned’s argument is that we need to first calculate the temperatures and then average them, he’s simply wrong … we need to first average the energy fluxes and then calculate the temperature.
Best regards,
w.
Thanks Willis! I’ve been saying that you can’t average intensive properties all along. Individuals, like Mr. Mosher, seem to think you can.
Jim
You’re completely correct re “we need to first average the energy fluxes and then calculate the temperature”. And, in fact, this is what Nikolov and Zeller claim to do with their equations that integrate TSI over a sphere. Their primary claim (“discovery”) is that the accepted “multiply by four” methodology is incorrect and results in far too high a value for a “gray body”.
I can easily imagine checking this experimentally with a vacuum chamber, a sphere covered with sensors, etc. The main point being that if N&Z are correct about this, then something is seriously wrong with the accepted “Trenberth models”. That, of course, doesn’t mean their ATE theory is correct, but to me this would be the place to start. With all the money being spent on climate research, why is there no definitive answer to what the Earth’s average temperature would be without an atmosphere? At least one that I can find.
“Earth’s average temperature would be without an atmosphere?”
Average temperature has no meaning, or at least no useful meaning.
Suppose you have a gram of water at 0 C; and a liter of water at 100 C. What is the average temperature? 50 C. But mix the water, and what is the result? Very nearly 100 C.
Reverse the experiment; one gram at 100 C and one liter at 0 C. What is the average? 50 C. Mix them; what do you get? Very nearly 0 C.
A planet whose average temperature was 17 C would be pretty nice, unless like the moon that average is obtained by having one side very hot and one side very cold.
Temperature is a measurement; an average of measurements is not itself a measurement. It can be useful for something although right now I’m not sure what exactly.
I completely misused the term “TSI” above. I meant insolation.
The opposite to this situation is the recent “plastic straw” debacle. At least in Leftie states, nobody questions the assumption that plastic straws are destroying the environment; all the debate is what to do about it.
In the N&Z case, nobody even wants to talk about their primary argument that Earth’s blackbody temperature is calculated way too high. If disproven, then the rest of their argument becomes far less relevant since greenhouse gases currently seem to explain everything. This seems like a weird approach to a layman like me.
Willis Eschenbach January 8, 2019 at 3:53 pm
‘Thanks, Bernard. I’ve never understood just why Ned thinks this is important.’
Willis,
Thanks for the description of intensive versus extensive properties which I agree is very important to differentiate between when talking about temperatures. I think your silver film example receiving back to back energy is difficult to compare to averaging the temperatures of two adjacent square meters on the earths surface. I would like to suggest another approach.
Imagine we did not know that the average energy received at TOA from the sun was 1361W/m2. Imagine also that the only data we had was the annual average temperature of each square meter of the earth’s surface – all 510 trillion of them! How would we calculate the incoming solar energy constant from that?
I think the best way would be take Ned’s calculation method and run it backwards!
In other words, start by averaging the 510 trillion temperatures to get one average global temperature and then work backwards taking the fourth power of that single average temperature, combining with the S-B constant and an emissivity assumption, adjusting for the earth being a sphere (ie. multiply by 4) and hey presto you would get the average TOA solar energy per square meter.
This is the identical method, in reverse, that Ned uses to calculate the S-B temperature of the earth with no atmosphere. This would get you back to 1361W/m2 which I think proves that Ned’s method is correct.
On this point, calculating the S-B temperature of the earth with no atmosphere, it seems to me that Ned is correct. It’s not an issue of intensive versus extensive, rather it boils down to taking an average of a set of numbers and then taking a fourth power (or a fourth root) of that average gives you a different answer than taking the fourth power (or root) of each of the numbers in the set and then averaging those results. I think when you run the S-B calculation backwards, starting with the temperature of each square meter and ending at the solar constant, the logic he is using seems to be intuitively correct.
I have no idea if the rest of his conclusions are correct but on the issue of how to calculate the S-B temperature of the earth with no atmosphere, I think his order of calculation looks to be the correct one. He says that we should break down the solar energy into all the 51 trillion different energy values that impact each square meter on earth, then take the fourth root of each of those numbers to get the temperature of each square meter, then average those temperatures to get the average world temperature. This order of calculation is better than assuming that every square meter of the earth receives the same energy from the sun – which I have to say does sound over-simplistic and definitely comes up with a different answer.
Of course, if this is correct, it means that the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere would be a lot lower than most people think.
Best regards
Dan says:
‘Their primary claim (“discovery”) is that the accepted “multiply by four” methodology is incorrect and results in far too high a value for a “gray body”.’
Dan,
I don’t think they have a problem with the “multiply by four” step in the calculation as that is simply the ratio of a sphere’s surface area to its cross-sectional area, which is basic geometry. Their issue is do you ‘average then take the fourth root’ or ‘take the fourth root then average’ when calculating temperature from emissions? You get a different answer each way.
Willis,
Apologies, but I think I fluffed the logic of reversing Ned’s calculation, However, knowing your knowledge in this area, I’m pretty sure you know what I meant to say!
🙂
Bernard,
re: “I don’t think they have a problem with the “multiply by four” step in the calculation as that is simply the ratio of a sphere’s surface area to its cross-sectional area, which is basic geometry.”
If you’ve read their papers, that really is the problem. The issue is the angle of incidence of the radiation being different along the surface of a sphere. In a perfect sphere, there is only one point that presents a perpendicular surface to the sun, which maximizes the amount of radiation that is absorbed at that point. As you get further from it, the angle of incidence increases, less energy is absorbed, and more is reflected. The poles aren’t cold because they are 93,003,959 miles from the sun but the equator is “only” 93,000,000 miles.
To me an almost perfect analogy would be air from a fan hitting a sphere vs. hitting a round disk with the same surface area. It’s pretty intuitive that there would be a lot more air pressure hitting a disk (being held perpendicular to the stream of air) than the sphere. You could further draw the sphere out to a sharp cone with the point facing the fan to make it even clearer. Same surface area, but less wind energy affecting the object.
I hope that makes sense, and again, I think it’s weird that this isn’t the main thing the experts are addressing.
Michael2,
Some good points, but take it up with the IPCC and others who want to control our lives. They invented the terms; the rest of us just try to use them appropriately.
Ah well, usual pattern.
Gravitationalists present a sound position then the objectors pile in with distraction and obfuscation so that the thread is lost.
Wait for the next relevant thread and set out the truth yet again 🙂
Mind you, each time I learn from the objectors and recruit more followers.
A fun game , is it not ?
Especially if Willis and Leif take my bait and show themselves up 🙂
Gravitationalists present a sound position…
They seem to convince themselves they do.
In your various word descriptions of your supposed process, I’ve yet to see anything that indicates the thermally driven up and down movement of parts the atmosphere (and suggested associated energy transfers) aren’t zero sum; that any localised surface heating in one place isn’t cancelled out by cooling somewhere else. Have you expressed your process mathematically so it can be examined without the ambiguity of words?
Why do you call yourselves gravitationalists? Your process, even if real, is thermally (solar) powered. Gravity doesn’t power anything here, it’s just part of the environment; affecting everything equally. Might as well call yourselves surfacists, planetists, or air-cellists (windbags?).
…recruit more followers.
I expect that’s a zero sum game as well. Those you excite in this round are compensated by those lost to eventual realisation + those dulled by the tedium.
If you ever bothered to read my description you would see that I fully accept that the up and down motion is zero sum, Indeed, that is the whole point because zero sum means no energy in AND no energy out so it is obviously a closed energy loop that needs a store of kinetic energy at the surface to maintain the ongoing process.
Have you engaged your brain at all ?
Have you engaged your brain at all ?
Of course, that’s how I can see that the consequence of the balanced up and down motions is balanced localised areas of cooling and warming. Resulting in no global significance.
…a closed energy loop that needs a store of kinetic energy at the surface to maintain the ongoing process.
So you’ve solved global warming and achieved perpetual motion in the same thread.
>>
. . . achieved perpetual motion in the same thread.
<<
Ahhh! Something on this thread I can agree with! From my thermodynamics text:
Jim
All you need for convection within a gas is density variations in the horizontal plane.
It is possible to have perpetual motion within a gas because of the weak bonds between molecules. It is just that in a gravitational field the motion gets organised into an up and down pattern.
Perpetual motion in a gaseous body is not the same as an admittedly impossible perpetual motion machine because it does not create or destroy energy. It just constantly redistributes the available energy due to external forces being stronger than the bonds between molecules.
One such external force being gravity, another being rotation and a myriad of ways that other types of material can interfere with the distribution of gas molecules.
So, no, it is not a perpetual motion machine, just a normal feature of the natural world operating in accordance with the GAS Laws.
“It is possible to have perpetual motion within a gas because of the weak bonds between molecules.”
No. There are losses in such a process, no perpetual motion.
“then the objectors pile in with distraction and obfuscation so that the thread is lost.”
Stephen:
I gave you the meteorology.
That is not “distraction and obfuscation”.
Unless you have a confirmation bias that self-fulfilingly makes it so.
The processes I describe above have been observed/are observed and measured on a daily basis, and those obs go into NWP models as the starting conditions for forecasts.
Don’t ever fly if you maintain it is incorrect
Gravity does not cause air to sink of its own volition.
And so does not continually pump atmospheric vertical circulation.
Here is a vid explaining the formation of a Hadley cell…..
Anthony,
In the video you posted, the presenter at point 4:40 has an example diagram that shows air rising at the poles.
Have a look at this video instead:-
“And every high pressure cell around the planet contains descending, warming air.
You can ignore all that ?”
No, and as I say it isn’t – it’s a basic.
What isn’t is that it’s initiated by gravity.
There is NOT a continual “pumping” of vertical motion in the atmosphere caused by surface convection and upper cooling/descending under the weight of gravity.
If it is not Gravity, why does it descend when it looses bouncy?
Why doesn’t it just stay there or move laterally only?
See my comment at your Divergence/Convergence comment.
“In the video you posted, the presenter at point 4:40 has an example diagram that shows air rising at the poles.”
Yes, it does Philip:
The Poles are cold.
Cold air is cyclonic in nature (winds in the NH aloft flow around anticlockwise) .
Converging winds at the surface.
Air can go nowhere other than up.
It starts aloft, with the greatest horizontal deltaT between air masses at the jet level. Air moves from warm to cold (more air above a parcel in a warm column than air in the cold) – so a pressure difference.
It flows towards lower pressure aloft, turns right (NH) and forms the PJS.
Below, LP systems are constantly being formed under the local divergence areas in the PJS.
Converging air at the surface rises and diverges aloft.
“Cold air is cyclonic in nature ”
Cyclones develop when warm air rises and colder air moves in at the base to replace it.
However the rising air is always warmer than its surroundings throughout the uplift process.
Anticyclones develop when cold air descends and warmer air moves up from below in a nearby low pressure are and then moves horizontally to feed the anticyclonic downflow.
However the falling air is always colder than its surroundings throughout the descent process.
Thus the assertion that cold air is cyclonic in nature is misleading. It certainly feels that way on the ground but in fact cyclones are driven by rising air that is warmer than its surroundings. That is why they develop over sun warmed land areas or over warm oceans as noted by Willis.
However, none of this is germane to the point at hand. The fact is that every high pressure area of whatever size and wherever located contains air that is warming during the descent and thereby delivering KE back to the surface to feed the adjoining area of uplift.
It is a zero sum process but you must have an energy source at base (on Earth 33k above S-B) to keep it running otherwise you really are proposing a perpetual energy machine.
“Cyclones develop when warm air rises and colder air moves in at the base to replace it.
However the rising air is always warmer than its surroundings throughout the uplift process.”
No, you talk of tropical cyclones.
Different process.
I talk of baroclinic ones (at the edges of Hadley cells).
“Anticyclones develop when cold air descends and warmer air moves up from below in a nearby low pressure are and then moves horizontally to feed the anticyclonic downflow.
However the falling air is always colder than its surroundings throughout the descent process.”
No, No No.
Anticyclones develop when converging air aloft is forced to descend (nowhere else to go is why).
Whether fed by converging winds to the south (subtropical cell) or from the cell to the north.
Not because it is cooling.
It can only descend under cooling if there is a deltaT between it and the surrounding air.
We are talking mass air transport here and not a local thermals , though the same applies and that has LH release as a complication.
The mass of air will cool at the same rate so where is the differential cooling around a parcel within it??
We are back to the buoyancy thing.
It’s all described fully in my posts and in the vid I linked.
“Thus the assertion that cold air is cyclonic in nature is misleading. It certainly feels that way on the ground but in fact cyclones are driven by rising air that is warmer than its surroundings. That is why they develop over sun warmed land areas or over warm oceans as noted by Willis.”
It’s basic thermodynamics and meteorology Stephen.
You return again to tropical storms.
They are an enhanced convective system but in fact a TS changes rotation through it’s vertical structure.
They become warm core as they rise. and as such the cyclonic (ACW in NH) lower down changes to anticyclonic (CW further up) such that the outflow rotates out in the opposite way the inflow came in.
Thermal differentials and convergence/divergence.
Not gravity.
Gravity did it’s thing long ago,.
“thereby delivering KE back to the surface to feed the adjoining area of uplift.”
Yes, it is, BUT it lost it on the upward ascent and as such is zero-sum
And please stop with your cockeyed imaginings of meteorology
Mind that would destroy your investment in your theory I know.
Sorry – real world.
Baroclinic systems also have rising air at the centre which is warmer than the surrounding air. In that case the additional warmth is supplied from the warm sector air which spins towards the centre and is there uplifted due to it being less dense than the surrounding air. Once the cold front catches up with the warm front the supply of warm air to the centre fails and the system dissipates.
So there is no essential difference between tropical and baroclinc cyclones with regard to the basic thermal structure. Relatively warm air in the centre which then cools with height.
As regards anticyclones it is right that the pattern of convection in the atmosphere usually has a single anticyclone supplied by outflows from more than one adjoining low pressure cell so there is convergence but the descent then occurs because the air at the top of the anticyclone is colder and denser than the air around it having previously been cooled in adiabatic uplift.
It then warms throughout the descent.
But that is all off topic since you accept that falling air releases KE as it descends.
Your only fundamental objection is that convection being a zero sum process it cannot heat the surface above S-B
If you were right then that would be a perpetual motion machine because there would be no energy left at the surface after radiation to space with which to fuel the ongoing convective process.
“It then warms throughout the descent.”
No. There is no descent column observed Stephen, you simply imagine that process, the rising convective air was replaced laterally at the bottom.
“Baroclinic systems also have rising air at the centre which is warmer than the surrounding air. In that case the additional warmth is supplied from the warm sector air which spins towards the centre and is there uplifted due to it being less dense than the surrounding air. Once the cold front catches up with the warm front the supply of warm air to the centre fails and the system dissipates.
So there is no essential difference between tropical and baroclinc cyclones with regard to the basic thermal structure. Relatively warm air in the centre which then cools with height.”
Stephen, you are talking to a meteorologist.
There is nothing you an teach me on the subject.
Sorry.
No, a baroclinic system get it’s energy from divergence aloft and the release of LH.
The system dissipates because the LH release part dissipates and the divergence aloft moves away leaving the system as a cut-off Low through it’s depth…. NOT the cutoff of sensible heat.
“but the descent then occurs because the air at the top of the anticyclone is colder and denser than the air around it having previously been cooled in adiabatic uplift.”
How many more times!!
It does NOT descend because it is colder it descends because it is converging aloft and has nowhere else to go.
The rule is if there is divergence (HP) at the surface there MUST be convergence aloft.
“If you were right then that would be a perpetual motion machine because there would be no energy left at the surface after radiation to space with which to fuel the ongoing convective process.”
It is right.
Stephen – The convection process is fuelled by the GHE, and the take up/release of LH.
Anthony,
Anthony,
You seem not to realise that my description takes the flow divergences and the latent heat release as a given and so I fail to see any significant difference between our descriptions. We are just using different words.
But it doesn’t matter here since we were considering Willis’s non GHG atmosphere so you can’t have the GHE providing fuel for convection unless the GHE is mass induced.
So you miss the point entirely
”..so you can’t have the GHE providing fuel for convection unless the GHE is mass induced.”
No Stephen, a non-GHG atm. still radiates, there is still convective activity as the fluid is still warmed from below in a gravity field. The GHE is not singularly mass induced as you write, the atm. IR opacity (commonly GHE) originates from the mixing ratios, mass extinction coefficients of the various radiation absorbers at the local total atm. pressure.
This is being a realist about observed natural processes; Stephen just hasn’t the education in basic meteorology & the physical sciences so resorts to being an imaginativist instead of a realist.
Anthony Banton says
“It does NOT descend because it is colder it descends because it is converging aloft and has nowhere else to go.
The rule is if there is divergence (HP) at the surface there MUST be convergence aloft.”
Definition of Convergence aloft.
“Convergence aloft causes surface pressures to rise
Air diverges from high pressure systems at the surface
Surface winds flow clockwise and outward in NH
Air sinks, warms, and dries, inhibiting cloud formation”
Do you agree with this?
Well, Anthony,
I see the downward leg in which air is warming by compression.
The same for every other circulatory feature.
And every high pressure cell around the planet contains descending, warming air.
You can ignore all that ?
And every high pressure cell around the planet contains descending, warming air.
What is a high pressure cell? Don’t cells contain high and low pressure areas?
No
But a circulation does.
Could you please do some homework ?
No
But a circulation does.
Good grief. A (Hadley / Farrel) cell is a circulation.
Can you check your homework and then explain what you meant by “high pressure cell”?
PJF
In meteorology a high-pressure cell is another term for an anticyclone, an individual area of high air pressure.
In climatology an atmospheric cell, such as the Hadley Cell, is a circulation system driven by convection.
Philip, thanks for your link. However, I could not see anything within that geography article that supports your suggestion that “high pressure cell” is a meteorological alternative term for an anticyclone (individual area of high pressure). The page uses “cells” (high and low) only in the normal context of Hadley, Farrel, etc, cells.
Indeed, the page separately describes a “high-pressure system, sometimes called an anticyclone”.
An admittedly brief search of the infernal interwebs didn’t find any difference across meteorology and climatology in the description of atmospheric cells. There certainly weren’t many examples of “high pressure cell” beyond engineering devices.
PJF
I think that this issue is one of terminology, and simply relates to the use of the same word cell in two distinctly different ways: –
1. To describe a geographical zone of a given areal extent with a common meteorological feature.
2. Used to describe a volume involved process, such as a Hadley Cell, that is a climatological component of the planet’s atmospheric circulation system.
YMMV
Willis: “I just have to shake my head at how some people state untrue things with such calm aplomb. ”
You’re absolutely right, and that’s one of my shortcomings. I took what Stephen said and made some assumptions I shouldn’t have. You have my apology.
I’m trying to reason this out and especially I’m trying to find some solid ground that can be debated. But, maybe I’m in the wrong place and wasting time I could be spending on more productive matters.
Don132
Thanks, Don, your most gracious apology gladly accepted.
w.
How does the use of the term ‘cell’ for an area of high or low pressure detract in any way from the point being made ?
The use of the term ‘cell’ pops up in weather forecasts all the time and if you google ‘high pressure cell’ you come up with lots of results relating to areas of high and low pressure in an atmosphere.
And for those who aver that convective overturning is a zero sum process that does not mean that it has zero energy content. You still need an energy store at the surface to feed into it and that is where the ‘extra’ 33k at the surface comes into it.
Also, nobody has registered that you can get a lapse rate and an ATE just by allowing convection to occur within Willis’s non-convecting model.
A true perpetual motion machine would be convection without an energy store at the base to feed into it.
Some people here have no difficulty believing in that.
Sad that Don has succumbed to the pressure of misinformation here.
“A true perpetual motion machine would be convection without an energy store at the base to feed into it.”
Good point Stephen! The sun is an energy source by virtue of its burning a fuel so supplies the energy for convection. Any gas specie in the atm. is not an energy source as it burns no fuel.
Stephen, I haven’t succumbed to anything yet. I may be dumb but I’m not stupid. I have questions and if the ATE is correct then I’d expect that those who support it and who are experts at it– I am not, because apparently I had a major misunderstanding about it– need to step up to the plate and provide clear and distinct answers. The two problems I see are:
1. In T = PM/Rρ, T affects PM/Rρ. If T is caused in part by GHGs, then that affects PM/Rρ. Holmes assumes that GHGs do not affect T and therefore do not affect PM/Rρ, and that’s how he proves that GHGs don’t affect PM/Rρ. Small problem? I see the same basic problem with NZ. I could be wrong.
2. In your version, KE rises, becomes PE, falls and becomes KE, new KE rises, but I see nowhere where the initial KE plus descending KE can be multiplied to become a thermal enhancement. How?
I call them as I see them. In my stumbling and fumbling way, that’s my sole contribution to this discussion.
Don132
Don, out of interest have you applied the same critique to the GHG Theory?
“…have you applied the same critique to the GHG Theory?”
No. That’s not the concern now. The concern, stated in the top post, is the validity of the ATE theory as presented by NZ, Holmes, and Stephen Wilde, and specifically the challenge posed by Willis’ model, which has not been refuted. I think that’s plenty to handle for now.
Don132
Having checked the current usage for the term ‘cell’ I see that it is now reserved for a circulation that combines both up and down movements.
That was not always the case.
So, in my earlier comment just substitute the term ‘high pressure areas’ for the term ‘high pressure cells’
In general, any area with pressure above 1000 mb will be termed high pressure and will contain descending, warming air.
At any given moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is falling.
High pressure areas contain air that is circulating downwards and warming whilst low pressure areas contain air that is circulating upwards and cooling.
High and low pressure regions contain air that is well mixed mostly rotating laterally, mostly perpendicular to the pressure lines. The winds from high and low pressure hit you in the face or back, not the top of your head. Stephen simply imagines descending columns that don’t exist in nature to suit his particular views.
Here is my summary of what I think I understand:
First we need to take the approach that Einstein did, ie, use a FACT as a start point of the thought experiment.(In Einsteins case, as I understand it, there was no change in the speed of light, despite the source being in motion towards or away from our measuring instrument. ‘Impossible’, everyone said, but that’s what the measurements showed.)
That FACT that we are starting with, as per NKs paper, is that the planets observed surface pressure and planet insolation sets the surface temperature, via a Pressurizing Thermal Effect(PTE), not the Greenhouse effect. “Impossible”, everyone says.
What we do know, is that the surface Pressure P is constant around our world, with MINOR variations(low pressure cells, ie, rising, high pressure cells, ie, descending, extreme turbulence, ie, tornadoes, massive turbulence, ie, hurricanes, very slow turbulence, ie, Hadley circulation)
The NK hypothesis develops a paramaterized PV=nrT (ideal gas law), to describe mathematically the PTE, and it appears to work on known planets.
We understand that T in that equation, at the planets surface, is subject to many effects, radiation, conduction, evaporation, thermalization, and convection.
But according to the hypothesis, T is grounded at the planets surface by PTE. This surface P and T must then be the start of the P and T lapse rate, rising up through the Troposphere.
The P atmospheric lapse rate is controlled by rising/sinking air. T drops as it must with P, as the atmosphere ascends in the Troposphere but is moderated by the H2O content. In the thin upper atmosphere, ie, the Tropopause and Stratosphere, GHG radiation moves heat faster than thermalization and thus controls T. These GHGs also cool the earth at altitude.
V is a direct function of T.
GHGs distribute heat horizontally efficiently, reducing temperature differences and thus V (atmospheric height) differences( which drive polar, warm/dark side winds. Thanks Steven)
The ‘back radiation we see in a GHG atmosphere is the result of the surface pressure induced T. Thermalization extinguishes GHG radiation heat transfer immediately (Happer). Convection takes the GHG thermalized heat to to elevations where GHG radiation dissipates that heat. Thunderstorms are most efficient as a daily heat pump.(thanks Willis)
In a non GHG or transparent atmosphere, the planets surface is the radiating surface. Conduction and convection create a hot body of atmosphere that cannot cool, except by conduction on the dark side of the planet. The amount of heat transferred to the dark side depends upon air/surface conduction rates, which is highly dependent on wind speeds.
Wind speeds will be much higher on a non GHG planet.
The GAT surface temperature is the same, barring inefficiencies due to wind momentum and friction effects. There is no “Greenhouse effect”.
In conclusion, is our chasing of GHG radiation as the driver of GAT misguided? Time will tell, with results from more probes.
We need to wait maybe 15 years, like Einstein did, when his detractors measured the bending of light around the sun to prove him wrong.. and failed.
”That FACT that we are starting with, as per NKs paper, is that the planets observed surface pressure and planet insolation sets the surface temperature.”
EdB 8:47am: No. That is not a fact with which to start.
Read their paper closely especially Fig. 4. The fact is they write mean surface “air pressure alone” sets the surface temperature Ts. This is ruled out by the 1LOT as the top post points out. They or others did not check their work closely enough before it was published. Now they cannot successfully defend their own paper at least in these comments, or at least so far. And in 15 years it will be just as indefensible.
When N&Z show out of sample application for their “new” formula, they resort to other than mean surface “air pressure alone” to explain other solar system object Ts (e.g. orbital illumination, albedo). So even N&Z show in their own paper mean surface “air pressure alone” does not set Ts – as they show in Fig. 4.
So.. you are one skeptic, among thousands, nay millions, about the GTE.
Time will tell.
It is clear that you have reading comprehension problems where their paper is concerned.
Fig 4 does NOT say ” mean surface “air pressure alone” sets the surface temperature Ts”
it actually says
Figure 4:
The relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (
Ts/Tna ratio) as a function of the average surface air pressure according to Eq. (10a) derived from
data representing a broad range of planetary environments in the solar system.
Saturn’s moon Titan has been excluded from the regression analysis leading
to Eq. (10a).
They also actually say
“Furthermore, the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE)
defined as a ratio of the planet’s actual global surface temperature to
the temperature it would have had in the absence of atmosphere is fully
explicable by the surface air pressure alone (Eq. 10a and Figure 4).”
That is the only place the the words “air pressure alone” appear.
This is the second time I have had to point out to you that you are not bothering to read their ACTUAL WORDS and MEANING.
Your Bait & Switch technique needs some more work.
Don’t all the equations used to prove ATE rest on the assumption that GHG warming cannot be baked into the parameters used to determine surface T?
T is determined by the parameters and the parameters are influenced by T; I noted an “equals” sign in there somewhere. If T rises by GHG effects then it affects the parameters, even if GHG warming isn’t explicitly in the parameters. Why does it have to be?
I don’t think you can assume the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.
Is that said with enough calm aplomb for everyone?
Don132
N&Z words: “as a function of the average surface air pressure according to Eq. (10a)”
“fully explicable by the surface air pressure alone (Eq. 10a and Figure 4).”
There is no statement about “their distance from the Sun” in Fig. 4 and Eqn. 10a has no orbital variable only P. It is A C doing the bait & switch here not me. But that’s ok, A C is just following N&Z who report to the media:
“The Zeller-Nikolov discovery means that Earth’s atmosphere keeps us warm via gas-compression heating under the weight of Earth’s approximately 300-mile-thick atmosphere, not by the greenhouse effect.” See link in top post.
So for solar objects “their distance from the Sun” doesn’t matter, that was just a bait & switch. Atlas is holding the earth up on his left shoulder and with his right hand pumping furiously to create N&Z’s compression heating. You know like a diesel engine no need for a spark plug…..or for N&Z, fuel.
Then in “Model Application and Validation” N&Z switch back into relevance “their distance from the Sun” and other important information like albedo, even N&Z don’t use just Eqn. 10a. The N&Z paper itself is bait & switch A C and you have been caught hook, line, and sinker.
You either just do NOT READ & COMPREHEND or you are being deliberately misleading, you use absolutely classic warmist cherry picking of a few words or half a sentence or talk about omissions of words in area when they have already been explained.
You present your own version of what other people write.
As I said up thread we have had this conversation before and last time I said I wouldn’t bother, but your comments are destructive to debate, so I will to continue to correct your errors in quotations.
A C, here is the full N&Z text for your convenience in your efforts:
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
Ho, you found it, I found it 2 days ago, how do you think I was posting what they ACTUALLY WROTE?
Which is why I know when you are talking crap about it.
You should try actually READING it instead of finding the odd word you want to misquote.
No misquote by me A C, I quoted N&Z verbatim. The full paper text quotation each time would be a bit over kill don’t ya’ think? I’ve posted a couple times the clips and wrote that’s to allow for a search string to read the full context material. A C seems to have found the quotes just fine which proves I didn’t alter them in any way.
So where is the quote clip begin & end point that makes A C perfectly happy?
You do not even read what I write, I quoted the exact words that they wrote compared to the selected words that you say that they wrote and you just keep repeating the same nonsense, so like last time.
Goodbye.
A C really means A C quoted the exact SELECTED words that they wrote compared to the selected words for a search string that I say that they wrote. Read their whole paper A C, you can then read the selected words in context like anyone else.
Don January 9, 2019 at 3:02 am
This just gets better. Your claim is that in order to keep editors from prejudging him based on his name, Ned Nikolov picks an alias that is so dang obvious that everyone will know it is him …
… is that your final answer?
Meanwhile, surprise, surprise, the Editor did NOT know it was Nikolov. And when I pointed it out to the Editor, the editor didn’t like being played for a fool, and refused to print his paper.
Funny how life works out.
w.
Stephen https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2582989 :
“When convection starts it creates the lapse rate slope by putting more PE at the top for a cooling effect and more KE at the bottom for a warming effect, that gives the thermal gradient.” I thought pressure created the lapse rate slope, but OK.
“You then have to realise that solar input continues as before but once recycling begins nothing is then being taken from the surface to support convection.” I don’t understand this.
When the sun hits the earth it warms and by conduction this leads to KE in the atmosphere. The KE rises and in so doing becomes more and more PE. Meanwhile, the KE that rose is replaced by new KE, exactly the same as before. The PE/KE higher up goes hither and yon (scientific term) and eventually returns more to the surface where it converts to the same KE as before. The PE/KE that’s falling as this KE/PE is rising– let’s say they meet at exactly the same time and place on the surface– can’t have more energy than the newly-created KE caused by surface conduction. So how do you get from there to surface thermal enhancement?
Don132
Let me restate, with calm aplomb, the two conclusions I see so far:
1. In T = PM/Rρ (part of Holmes’ proof for ATE), T affects PM/Rρ. If T is caused in part by GHGs, then that affects PM/Rρ. Holmes assumes that GHGs do not affect T and therefore do not affect PM/Rρ, and that’s how he proves that GHGs don’t affect PM/Rρ. Assuming the conclusion. Credit goes to Willis, as I first heard of this problem from him. I see the same basic problem with NZ. I could be wrong.
2. In Stephen’s version, KE rises, becomes PE, falls and becomes KE, new KE rises, but I see nowhere where the initial KE plus descending KE or any additional KE from the atmosphere/surface/sun interaction can be multiplied to become a thermal enhancement. How?
In addition, those who oppose Willis’ model haven’t explained how it’s unphysical; it’s highly improbable, but not impossible. They also have not explained how the universal ATE would operate on such a planet.
If anything, I’ve been favoring the gravitationists all along. Just sayin’.
Thanks to Anthony and others for allowing this discussion to continue.
What do the supporters of the ATE say?
Don132
Clive Best addressed the issue here.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6305
The sky dragons are correct that gravity is necessary for a greenhouse effect, but it isn’t sufficient. You still need greenhouse gases.
Don
“Holmes assumes that GHGs do not affect T and therefore do not affect PM/Rρ, and that’s how he proves that GHGs don’t affect PM/Rρ”
.
Nonsense.
The exact opposite in fact.
I have shown that a change in GHG concentrations does not anomalously affect pressure or density, and so cannot possibly affect temperature anomalously either.
.
“…the circular reasoning is clear..”
.
There is no circular reasoning, because you misunderstand the process I undertook. This is obvious when you state this total fiction;
.
“the foundational assertion of both Holmes and NZ is that pressure, density, and insolation can be used to solve for surface temperature; therefore, there is no effect from GHGs.”
Holmes:
“I have shown that a change in GHG concentrations does not anomalously affect pressure or density, and so cannot possibly affect temperature anomalously either.”
If GHG are found in an atmosphere, then they add to atmospheric mass and thereby influence pressure or density: granted.
If GHG do not heat the atmosphere, then T = PM/Rρ is true.
IF GHG do heat the atmosphere, then T = PM/Rρ is also true because increasing T affects PM/Rρ.
The only way T = PM/Rρ can prove that GHGs do not affect T is by proving that T, however warmed to become T, does not affect T = PM/Rρ. Is that what you’re stating?
Don132
Don,
You are getting there slowly.
The key word to watch for is ‘anomalously’.
Yes, GHG (or any other gas) added to an atmosphere affects density, pressure and molar mass.
But do they affect these ANOMALOUSLY? That is the key point.
For example, if 0.04% CO2 were added to our atmosphere, and its climate sensitivity were 0c, then there would be no unusual changes in density, pressure or molar mass.
BUT – if 0.04% CO2 were added to our atmosphere, and its climate sensitivity were 3c, then there would be VERY LARGE (i.e. anomalous) changes in density or pressure.
These MUST be of the order 10 to 25 times what would be expected in the 0c case.
This is how the existence or not of the GHE can be tested in real atmospheres.
Holmes: “… if 0.04% CO2 were added to our atmosphere, and its climate sensitivity were 3c, then there would be VERY LARGE (i.e. anomalous) changes in density or pressure.”
And, there would be a corresponding anomalous change in T. So T = PM/Rρ still holds.
If GHGs affect T, then T affects PM/Rρ, regardless of where the T came from, and if the T increase is anomalous, then so would PM/Rρ changes be anomalous: the anomalies cancel out, as it were.
Don132
“If GHGs affect T, then T affects PM/Rρ, regardless of where the T came from, and if the T increase is anomalous, then so would PM/Rρ changes be anomalous: ”
.
You have it all backwards, I think on purpose. You are a troll.
“You have it all backwards, I think on purpose. You are a troll.”
I don’t expect you to roll over and admit that the theory you’ve defended so ardently is based on assuming that a tautology can stand as a proof, but I assure you I’m not a troll, and accusing me of that is a way of dismissing someone through insults– an ad hominem argument.
“In Stephen’s version, KE rises, becomes PE, falls and becomes KE, new KE rises, but I see nowhere where the initial KE plus descending KE or any additional KE from the atmosphere/surface/sun interaction can be multiplied to become a thermal enhancement. How?”
That is dealt with in my narrative thus:
The energy initially required to provide the PE in the atmosphere is drawn from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space.Willis accepts that but will not take the next step.
Once the adiabatic loop closes with the return of surface air back to the base of the rising column the process no longer needs to draw KE from the outgoing radiation because it is being provided by the circular flow so the surface is no longer being cooled by convection and the surface goes back to S-B BUT you still have the extra energy in circulation.
You then have two sources of energy namely the continuing insolation PLUS the KE locked into the closed adiabatic loop.
Anthony Banton accepts that you need KE at the base to keep convection running. That must be in addition to the KE needed to radiate 255k to space so you must then have 288k at the surface.
So, 255k radiates to space and 33k recycles in and out of the adiabatic loop indefinitely.
Anthony Banton says that the 33k comes from the (radiative) greenhouse effect but I described a non radiative atmosphere so it MUST come from the mass induced greenhouse effect and NOT downward radiation.
The only way you can resist that conclusion is by proposing that the atmospheric gases do not convect and I have described why that is impossible. For convection to begin all one needs is density variations in the horizontal plane and they cannot be prevented for a rotating, rough surfaced sphere illuminated externally.
So, if the process works for a non radiative atmosphere it must be a mass induced effect.
“Once the adiabatic loop closes with the return of surface air back to the base of the rising column the process no longer needs to draw KE from the outgoing radiation because it is being provided by the circular flow so the surface is no longer being cooled by convection and the surface goes back to S-B BUT you still have the extra energy in circulation.”
Not observed to exist Stephen. The rising column of convective air warmed at the bottom in a gravity field is replaced with air at the bottom of the column not replaced from air at the top. Your narrative is faulty as falling columns do not exist in a mostly hydrostatic atm., the rising air equilibrates with upper surroundings and ceases to rise or fall.
The overall circulation neither creates nor destroys energy, thus the sutface equlibrium is maintained by circulation either at 255K or 288K depending on the IR opacity of the atm.
Air involved in adiabatic uplift or descent cannot reach equilibrium with its surroundings because PE is not heat and can no longer conduct or radiate.
The temperature differential with the surroundings continues throughout uplift and descent which is why air at the top has to be forced sideways until it finds a route downwards at a distance from the rising column where the air below it is providing less resistance.
It is a mechanical process forced by density and thus weight differences.
I’ve been telling you to study it for years but you never bother.
“I’ve been telling you to study it for years but you never bother.”
I’ve been telling Stephen to open his eyes and LOOK at convection processes for years but Stephen never bothers preferring to just incorrectly imagine what happens instead. Stephen never will understand what really happens even though all Stephen has to do is go to youtube search: convection.
Observations show a fluid involved in adiabatic uplift (meaning too quickly to get to equilibrium with surroundings at first) or descent does fairly quickly reach equilibrium with its surroundings and still, PE is not heat and can no longer conduct or radiate.
Trick:
Please ignore what I’m about to say if continuing to debate incurably delusional folks like Mr. Wilde still amuses you.
For the benefit of those whose minds are still open, though, I would concede a perpetually overturning atmosphere for the sake of argument, because in isolation the perpetually overturning atmosphere violates only the Second Law, not the First, and even most people who think they understand entropy really don’t. (I include myself; at this moment, for example, I wouldn’t be able to derive the thermodynamics definition from the statistical-mechanics one.)
No, I’d focus instead on considering the First Law violation that results from what Mr. Wilde says is that perpetually overturning atmosphere’s consequence, i.e., from continually withdrawing energy from that perpetually overturning atmosphere to cause the surface (together with, somehow, the non-radiative atmosphere) to emit more than the surface absorbs from the sun.
That is, I would concentrate on Mr. Wilde’s response to my summary.
In view of how little success I’ve had in my attempts to explain things to Don132, though, you’re perfectly justified in ignoring my suggestion.
Joe Born: “In view of how little success I’ve had in my attempts to explain things to Don132.”
You haven’t been keeping up with all the comments, have you?
Don132
Joe, Mr. Wilde is quite obviously not trained in the modern physical sciences to any great extent so, unless that changes, Mr. Wilde does not evidence the physical laws learned thru experiment and observation. In legislated law, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Joe Born January 10, 2019 at 3:26 am
“together with, somehow, the non-radiative atmosphere)”
There is NO non-radiative atmosphere.
Let me ask you, does Oxygen radiate?
“There is NO non-radiative atmosphere.”
That’s correct A C, any mass radiates at each temperature and at every frequency so all planetary atmospheres radiate, even the ones in thought experiments whether the commenter realizes it or not.
@Trick
“any mass radiates at each temperature and at every frequency”
NOT SO. Most solids radiate IR across an essentially continuous spectrum because solids have many bonds (including hydrogen bonding sometimes) that can share the IR energy in absorption and emission. Gases do not, and therefore ONLY radiate in their permitted quantum bands.
Suggest you guys learn some basic quantum spectroscopy.
”Gases do not, and therefore ONLY radiate in their permitted quantum bands. Suggest you guys learn some basic quantum spectroscopy.”
I do too, where what you write is observed incorrect Don, much of the basic gas quantum spectroscopy was done in the 1920/30s maybe little later when the field was an active research topic. The work proved a gas will radiate at each temperature and each frequency just like a solid, the lines are broadened for several unique reasons. Specialist textbooks in the 50s,60s explain the various multiple level quantum jumps. Contact a librarian, they will be happy to show you the research in the stacks.
Take the 15u CO2 band. There are several vibrational levels just at v1 (first activated state) and many more at higher states. Each of those has associated rotational levels. (For CO2, changes in rotational levels cannot be produced by photon absorption, but can be via kinetic collisions.) Each of these v and s states is a distinct quantum energy. Collectively they may resemble a continuous spectrum, but they are not. (Even with solids that appear to have a continuous spectrum, that is made up of many, many distinct quantum lines very close together.
The 15u CO2 band is referred to as a single band because the central 15u v level has the greatest magnitude. Two other reasonable strong v levels are at 16.2u and 13.9u. There are a total of 13 vibrational levels, spanning ~9.4-18.4u. Thus, in one sense this 15u band is almost continuous across a wide spectrum. HOWEVER, as the v states move away from the central 15u, their intensity for absorption and emission decrease by several orders of magnitude. These outher v states (and associated rotation states) have increasing importance as the CO2 concentration increases. View a satellite IR spectrum to see the 15u band widening they produce (and increased warming). The 15u CO2 band is definitely NOT like the “continuous” spectrum of many solids.
DonB, like almost everybody on here you state your opinion with a great deal of certainty even when you are obviously wrong.
The Satellite Atmospheric Temperature measurements are of Radiation.
The Radiation measured is from Oxygen.
If Oxugen cannot radiate how are the Satellites reading it?
Satellites measure the IR spectrum escaping Earth. That spectrum peaks ~10-15u, depending on surface temperature. Look up what gaseous molecules absorb IR in that region and somewhat wider (2-20u). You will find H2O, CO2, CH4 and a few rare gases. You won’t find O2. At wavelengths these gases do not absorb-emit, the satellite measured emission comes from the surface and matches a black-body temperature curve for that surface temperature. GHG that absorb match blackbody temperature curves for the temperature at the atmospheric height they emit IR that escapes to space.
As I said, the O2 and N2 bonds are strong and require higher quantum energy changes in the UV, not the IR.
”For CO2, changes in rotational levels cannot be produced by photon absorption”
Only the translational molecular KE is not quantized; rotational, vibrational KE of all molecules (and atoms) is always observed to be quantized.
Collectively the gas is measured as a continuous spectrum; the individual molecules emit at a specific frequency but primarily because molecules all move at different speeds, the lines are broadened into continuous spectra. Just see the Planck curve, every frequency and temperature that is input, outputs a nonzero radiance – this curve was discovered from multiple experiments on gas as well as solid, liquid, plasma.
DonB, Oxygen radiates in the microwave band and that is what the Satellites read.
So to say that O2 and N2 do not radiate is not correct.
The latest work by Raman Spectropy suggests that that O2 & N2 also radiates in the IR band.
O2 and N2 don’t have dipoles an thus cannot have vibrational transitions, which are what produce the major IR emissions. They do have very low energy rotations. Microwaves have much lower radiation energy compared to the IR. Earth warms VERY little from absorbing microwaves. Satellites used for weather and Earth’s energy loss measure primarily in the IR, not the microwave region.
Don, although N2, O2 have no static dipole they exhibit a weak dynamic dipole as they vibrate.
The collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorption signature of O2 in the thermal infrared. N2 has two major bands influencing the infrared radiation: the collision-induced roto-vibrational fundamental band at 2400 cm^-1 and the collision-induced roto-translational band at 100 cm^-1. These are very weak but nonzero, reducing OLR through Earth atm. due their abundance by about 0.1 to 0.2 W/m^2 each. For comparison that’s about 15% of the OLR reduction by trace gas CH4.
For a GHG to be of consequence it must absorb Earth’s IR radiation at a wavelength where the largest loss of surface energy occurs. The surface largely emits IR around 280-300K, and the peak intensity of that IR release occurs about 10u. Because CO2 also absorbs and emits this IR energy at high altitudes where it is colder, the peak of IR emission there shifts more toward 15u. So the 15u band is ideally located to have a major influence on IR absorption-emission.
A 2400 wave number (4.1u) is way down the surface IR release curve, where intensity is much lower, only a few percent of what it is at 10u and 288K. And, as that wave length corresponds to quite high temperatures not found in the atmosphere, so no atmospheric absorption and emission at 4u. Thus any IR release occurring around 4u intercepts a very small amount of outgoing IR energy and has little GHG effect. That is why the 4.4u band for CO2 is not considered important, although it has little IR absorption competition from H2O. Same with the very minor absorptions for O2 and N2. The 100 cm^-1 you mention for O2 is VERY far out in the IR, where emission energy is almost non-existent, so has NO effect on GHG warming.
Again, Don, you are incorrect to write “no atmospheric absorption and emission at 4u” and “NO effect on GHG warming.” You are correct to write “very minor absorptions for O2 and N2” as the mass of the atm. absorbs at all temperatures and all wavelengths, though some more than others.
“the mass of the atm. absorbs at all temperatures and all wavelengths, though some more than others”
Then why do satellites measure the full IR radiation across ~10-13u, whose BB temperature indicates emission from the surface with no absorption? This is near the maximum intensity of IR emission.
Satellites measure the IR radiation reaching their viewports in the scene across ~10-13u, whose thermometer temperature indicates emission from the near surface atm. with little absorption in between.
Stephen:
“The energy initially required to provide the PE in the atmosphere is drawn from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space.” But as I understand the basic physics, as it’s been explained to me in comments from older posts, a radiating molecule does not lose kinetic energy: it does not slow down or lose internal energy in the process of radiating. Is this correct? And don’t you mean that the initial energy is to provide KE in the atmosphere (not PE as you say), which then becomes PE? The issue of how we get to additional KE to cause thermal enhancement is key.
If it’s correct that radiating molecules don’t lose internal energy, then your next statement is also false: “Once the adiabatic loop closes with the return of surface air back to the base of the rising column the process no longer needs to draw KE from the outgoing radiation…”
So yes, I’m confused. Please clarify.
Don132
If radiative energy leaves a molecule it cools down and radiates less UNLESS the lost energy is replaced, as it is, by fresh insolation.
My narrative is perfectly clear on the issue which is a matter of timing.
Convection holds back an energy store sufficient to hold the atmosphere off the ground and maintain convection.
That results in a surface warmer than BB.
“That results in a surface warmer than BB.”
Warmer than surroundings not warmer than BB. Locally if convection started the unevenly warmed surface is warming the gas from below in a gravity field but when the surface air flows in replacing the convecting rising air, the surface returns to ambient equilibrated with surroundings and convection ceases. The warmer air rises until it equilibrates with surrounding air on the lapse gradient and convection ceases, there is no downward movement at that state.
Anthony Banton says that the 33k comes from the (radiative) greenhouse effect but I described a non radiative atmosphere so it MUST come from the mass induced greenhouse effect and NOT downward radiation.
Presumably, Anne Elk (Miss) felt emphatically that her theory (which was hers) on Brontosauruses logically precluded other ideas concerning varying volumetric dimensions along sauropods.
It has to be either radiative OR mass induced, not both.
No other options.
Ned Nikolov wrote:
That’s me!
How petty-minded of Ned to smear his hosts and his readers with implied insults at the same time as asking them all to do him the favour of spending their valuable time reading his papers over and over again and to pay close attention while they’re doing so too! I guess he must think that what he has to say in them is really important. But I think he would find that he had a more receptive audience if he was to adopt a less presumptuos and desultory manner.
Anyway, after having read most of the contents of the two papers that he has asked us to read (I shall probably never get time to read through all his detailed mathematical arguments even once in what remains of my present incarnation, let alone do it 2 or 3 times as he requests), I have come to think there are some basic points of difference between his alleged “discovery” and the existing conceptions and theories of orthodox physics. That is not meant to imply that what he thinks he has discovered is necessarily wrong, of course: it is just meant to imply that Ned’s “discovery” is in conflict with some of the physical laws of the universe as orthodox physics currently understands them to be.
Ned’s central claim and purported “discovery” is stated in the Abstract of his 2017 paper as follows:
[Note: GMAT means “Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature” – from same Abstract.]
According to established orthodox physics, it is absolutely impossible for any GMATs to be predicted just from a knowledge of those two variables.
Why? Because those two variables do not appear to contain any information pertaining to a planet’s global mean surface temperature (i.e. its GMAT) that can be extracted by any kind of data analysis currently known to humanity. One doesn’t need to study Ned’s particular analysis to understand that, from the standpoint of orthodox science, his results are physically impossible. It is a well-established principle of data-analysis that you cannot extract information from data that do not contain it to begin with. Yet Ned is claiming that his analysis has done precisely that! That is a revolutionary claim, because if it is true it must overturn practically all of known physics after razing it to the ground first.
Allow me to demonstrate, taking Ned’s first “driving variable” – TOA solar irradiance – first.
In orthodox physics, the temperature of a gas is conceived fundamentally as being entirely a phenomenon of kinetic energy. More precisely, it is conceived as being determined solely by the average kinetic energy of the molecules comprising the gas. That is to say, no other factors are involved and the mathematical relationship between absolute temperature (T) and average kinetic energy (K) is the simple linear one:
where C is a constant.
It follows from this simple mathematical relationship that the only “driving variable” that can possibly determine the near-surface temperature of a planetary atmosphere is the kinetic energy of the near-surface gas molecules and nothing else. The more kinetic energy they possess the hotter the globally-averaged near-surface temperature will be and, conversely, the less kinetic energy they possess the colder it will be.
Now, it is also generally understood in orthodox physics that those near-surface atmospheric molecules obtain their kinetic energy originally from the radiation that the planet absorbs from the Sun. So if we know how much energy the planet is absorbing from incoming solar radiation, we can calculate quite readily and easily the amount of kinetic energy the near-surface molecules must contain and, from that, the global mean near-surface temperature – GMAT.
But how can we tell how much incoming solar energy the planet is absorbing? We must find that out before we can calculate the GMAT, but Ned’s first “driving variable” – the TOA solar irradiance – doesn’t tell us. It only tells us how much incoming solar energy is available for absorption, not how much is actually absorbed. In order to determine that we need to know the value of another variable: the planet’s reflectivity, or “albedo” (α). If we know that and we know the value of the TOA solar irradiance too, we can calculate the quantity of energy being absorbed quite easily. But Ned’s first “driving variable” cannot give us the information we need about the planet’s albedo because it doesn’t contain that information. So the planet’s near-surface atmosphere’s average kinetic energy cannot be calculated from Ned’s first driving variable and its near-surface global mean temperature cannot be calculated either.
Still, Ned claims that it’s the combination of the two variables that enables him to make his predictions, so let’s take a look at his second one now – surface pressure – again from the standpoint of orthodox physics.
Again, there is absolutely no information about near-surface global mean temperatures available to us from the knowledge of surface pressures. This may come as a surprise to readers who have been attempting to rationalize and explain the “N&Z effect” by means of the well-known gas law equation (PV = nRT), but if they would care to visit this Wikipedia page they may see that the kinetic theory of gases which underlies the gas laws does not apply to gases in gravitational fields. Whereas under the ordinary gas laws Pressure and Temperature are interrelated, for a planetary atmosphere the surface pressure is a function solely of the planet’s surface area and the weight of the atmosphere in its gravitational field. Therefore, surface pressure contains absolutely no information about the near-surface global mean temperature whatsoever.
Given, then, that neither of Ned’s primary “driving variables” contain any information at all about the GMAT, how can he possibly be able to extract enough information about it from them to predict it accurately from a knowledge of those two variables. As I’ve shown, according to orthodox physics, he can’t and therefore it must be an illusion.
Until the 1970s ‘orthodox’ physics via Maxwell et al was clear that atmospheric mass created the greenhouse effect.
Since then there has been an aberration due to astrophysisists with no meteorology knowledge taking over climatology for themselves.
All they know about is radiative transfers which is not sufficient because the atmosphere runs on potential energy which is not heat and cannot conduct or radiate.
Stephen, in the past, I’ve pointed you to an American meteorologist Edward N. Lorenz who in May 1955 published a foundational paper of the conversion of atm. PE into KE: “There is no assurance in any individual case that all the available potential energy will be converted into kinetic energy.”
The paper covered many of the local convection and large-scale circulation topics discussed in this thread. Google string: Available Potential Energy and the Maintenance of the General Circulation
Even though you (and many other commenters) lack much of the pre-req.s for the math involved, the discussion should not be beyond your reach due your interest in the subject. To date, you have not bothered to evidence learning from it. Try again, little more intently, studiously.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.3351
In fact not Willis nor any other Contras have adressed N+Z’s actual Paper. Must be lacking the nous? Brett
Brett:
“In fact not Willis nor any other Contras have addressed N+Z’s actual Paper. Must be lacking the nous?”
Let’s refrain from name-calling, please.
As I see it, the foundational assertion of both Holmes and NZ is that pressure, density, and insolation can be used to solve for surface temperature; therefore, there is no effect from GHGs. However, it’s entirely possible that GHGs can be affecting pressure and density or other parameters that are affected by temperature, since the equations are in the form of T = PM/Rρ (Holmes’ version): there’s an equality stated. So even if GHGs affected T, you’d still get the same relationship: T = PM/Rρ. This has been pointed out by others. But now maybe the circular reasoning is clear, as is the fault: assuming the conclusion.
Those who have been following WUWT for a time know that I’ve always been a supporter of the ATE theory, and that I had a huge argument with Willis over it some time ago. But unless the two key objections I’ve stated can be answered straightforwardly, then I don’t see that the gravitationists are standing on any solid ground, but are instead insisting that circular logic is valid as a proof. I don’t think so.
Don132
“As I see it, the foundational assertion of both Holmes and NZ is that pressure, density, and insolation can be used to solve for surface temperature; therefore, there is no effect from GHGs.”
.
No.
I am not leaping from an assertion to a conclusion like this.
See my past posts, this has been explained ad-nausea in words of one syllable several times already.
Go back and read my posts.
Holmes, if the radiative GHE is real and it raises T, then what happens to PM/Rρ? Do they remain the same?
I don’t need to re-read anything. We’re talking about simple and basic points of logic here, and all you have to do is give your answer so we can clarify things.
You seem to be asserting that even if the radiative GHG were true, then it can’t affect PM/Rρ. All other forms of heating of the atmosphere are allowed, but radiative GHG heating is the sole source of heating that doesn’t affect PM/Rρ. Or to put it another way, you’re saying that T affects PM/Rρ in all cases except one, and that’s when T is altered by radiative effects.
Don132
“Holmes, if the radiative GHE is real and it raises T, then what happens to PM/Rρ? Do they remain the same?”
“You seem to be asserting that even if the radiative GHG were true, then it can’t affect PM/Rρ”
.
Don, you are just trolling me now.
“Don, you are just trolling me now.”
You don’t see the blatant logical contradiction?
I’m not trolling anyone. All along I’ve been arguing in good faith. I consider “trolling” just another ad hominem attack.
The argument I presented has been seen by many others; I’m not the first, although maybe others haven’t laid it out in quite the same way.
Don,
“You don’t see the blatant logical contradiction?”
.
No I don’t.
If you skim through the paper, you will arrive at your conclusion. If you follow the logic step-by-step as it is outlined, then greater clarity should emerge.
I never said that if the GHE were true, then it couldn’t affect PM/Rρ.
Quite the reverse in fact.
After many explanations, you still seem to have almost everything backwards, perhaps deliberately, this is why I was suspicious.
.
“T affects PM/Rρ ”
.
You keep saying this – again backwards.
What sets T is PM/Rρ not the reverse.
This is why any GHE must make a big change in density or pressure or both.
There is no evidence that it does.
“This is why any GHE must make a big change in density or pressure or both. There is no evidence that it does.”
There is a ton of published evidence IR opacity (aka GHE) makes a big change in density and pressure & even thermometer temperature starting in 1861. Robert is just behind in his reading.
Trick;
“There is a ton of published evidence IR opacity (aka GHE) makes a big change in density and pressure ”
.
No; there is published evidence that there is a change in density and pressure in the region of the atmosphere associated with the region of IR opacity. That is not conclusive evidence of warming caused by the IR opacity itself, just as a rise in temperature associated with a rise in CO2 is not conclusive evidence of attribution.
This problem cannot be solved by looking at the Earth alone, which is why I introduced several other planetary bodies atmospheres in my papers.
A comparison must be made between atmospheres with varying amounts of GHG in them i order to determine attribution.
“No; there is published evidence that there is a change in density and pressure in the region of the atmosphere associated with the region of IR opacity.”
The atm. IR opacity is a global change Robert not regional. The gases are thoroughly well mixed. Locally, there may be some gas concentrations but globally gases are well mixed in the troposphere by winds.
” just as a rise in temperature associated with a rise in CO2 is not conclusive evidence of attribution.”
You may want to reword that. A rise in temperature associated with a rise in CO2 is conclusive evidence of attribution as was shown in 1861, along with other gases.
”This problem cannot be solved by looking at the Earth alone”
NASA measurements of other planets such as Mars and Venus show the same results as on Earth once the illumination, grey absorber mixing ratios, mass extinction coefficients and total atm. pressure differences are accounted. That is, surface temperatures of these planets have been reasonably measured and are computed with 1LOT surface balances using that input information.
” just as a rise in temperature associated with a rise in CO2 is not conclusive evidence of attribution.”
.
Alright, if you like I will reword it to;
” just as a rise in temperature happening at the same time as a rise in CO2 is not conclusive evidence of attribution.”
.
“NASA measurements of other planets such as Mars and Venus show the same results as on Earth..”
.
Really?
A direct solar insolation of less than 20W/m2 at the surface of Venus can result in emission from that same surface of 15,000W/m2? Really?
”Alright, if you like I will reword it:”
That’s better.
”Really?”
Yes, total available radiation is ~170 W/m^2 & at Venus surface there are no true atmospheric windows at IR wavelengths greater than 3micron. Downward radiation to the surface increases with increasing concentration of infrared-active gases, accompanied by higher atmospheric (tropospheric) temperatures. See page 36 of Bohren 2006.
Venus surface T rises to achieve 1LOT balance with each IR opaque layer until Venus atm. thins out in the IR at total pressure about 0.1 to 0.2bar and radiation directly to space becomes possible. Starting from 93bar, 1LOT equlibrium at each P(z) layer means the surface achieves solar input balance around 732K.
Read my response at 6.58 pm Jan 9th
I wrote my previous comment through bleary eyes very late last night and upon re-reading it in the cold grey light of dawn this morning, I see that I wrote some gibberish about Ned’s first “driving variable” – TOA solar irradiance. The gibberish began with the second sentence of this paragraph:
My brain must have already started to switch off. Of course we can’t calculate “the amount of kinetic energy the near-surface molecules must contain and, from that, the global mean near-surface temperature” just from knowing how much energy (or power, to be strictly accurate) the planet is absorbing from incoming solar radiation! If we could, this whole controversy would never have arisen.
Let me try to correct and clear up my gibberish, then, by saying that the amount of power which the planet is absorbing from incoming sunlight (i.e. its insolation) only enables us to calculate what NASA has (misleadingly, IMO) called the planet’s “black body temperature” and what Willis has called its “S-B temperature”, which is the theoretical maximum temperature that insolation can support by itself (i.e. without being supplemented by power from some other source, such as the greenhouse effect).
Nevertheless, this correction does not detract from the thrust of my argument, which was that, from the standpoint of orthodox science, the TOA solar irradiance does not contain any information about the global mean surface temperature for Ned’s, or anyone else’s data analysis to extract. Since his second “driving variable” – surface pressure – doesn’t contain any information about it either, his claim to be able to predict it from those two variables alone seems scientifically baseless to me.
Can you name the “Driving Variables” that are not used in you estimation please?
A C Osborn, January 10, 2019 at 9:26 am:
I’d be happy to do that, AC, if I knew what you are referring to. Do you mean the mathematical parameters of a heuristic formula that can be used for calculation purposes but don’t explain anything, such as N&Z claim to have come up with? Or do you mean the causal physical factors that orthodox science says determine the global mean surface temperatures of planets with atmospheres?
I could probably describe the latter, but not the former.
The latter please.
Thanks, A C. I hoped that was what you were asking me.
Please see my latest comment below, 3rd item, for my answer.
To summarize where we are at this point:
A lot of people have argued the physics to dismiss NZ.
But at heart it seems that any formulation of T = PM/Rρ (presuming that NZ’s equation follows the same logic, if not the same form) for all planets is not a proof for where T comes from or where PM/Rρ come from: the formula T = PM/Rρ is a tautology, not a proof. This has been pointed out by several people but seems to have been glossed over.
In Stephen’s formulation, it seems to depend ultimately on the fact that a radiating molecule losses kinetic energy. So far, no one has stepped up to defend that position, which as I remember is not true.
Don132
If a “radiating molecule” does not lose Kinetic Energy, what Energy does it lose when radiating Energy.
@A.C.O.
Take CO2 as an example. When it absorbs energy in the 15u band, it has higher internal energy. When that CO2 collides with another molecule (e.g., N2 or O2), some of that higher internal energy is transferred. At sea level, molecular collisions occur about every nano-second. However, there is a bond relaxation time after that CO2 acquires extra energy, and after that time the CO2 may lose that extra energy by emitting 15u band photons. This relaxation time is about 0.1-1 sec. Thus, transferring extra energy via collisions occurs much faster than by IR emission.
However, the CO2 molecule may also gain internal energy via collisions. This increases the rate of energy loss via IR emission relative to collision.
Remember, the 15u IR band is several microns wide, not just at 15u, and contains several vibrational transitions. But, the 15u one occurs with higher frequency.
I know.
Don
“In a GHG-free atmosphere, the effective emissions height is the surface. So then how does the temperature rise above BB?”
.
There are two objections here.
First, there is doubt about the accuracy of the BB law, N&Z and others have papers on this.
Second, I do not believe the first statement is correct. In a strongly convecting atmosphere, why would the effective emissions height be at surface?
.
“I think what’s so hard to comprehend is how pressure alone raises temp above BB.”
.
Well, the fact is it doesn’t. Who said it does this ‘alone’?
It’s the Sun which powers the creation of potential energy in the atmosphere, because it powers convection. Convection of a thick atmosphere in a gravitational field results in a thermal gradient and a thermal enhancement through the generation of KE (temperature) in regions >10kPa.
.
“I don’t get where the extra KE comes from for thermal enhancement above BB temp. ”
.
This has been explained many times.
.
“Your above example assumes GHGs that raise emissions height above the surface.”
.
No it doesn’t. It assumes that either the BB law is wrong, or the emissions height is not at the surface in a non-GHG atmosphere.
“This has been explained many times.”
And all such explanations for “I don’t get where the extra KE comes from for thermal enhancement” violate 1LOT as shown in the top post.
don – stop playing silly games. steven- feeding trolls is a waste of time. don check the ratio of radiant emittances to ke collisions. but there is no good intent here is there. brett
Brett,
What will the ratio of radiant emissions to KE collisions tell us?
The central issues are the contradictions at the heart of Holmes’ formulation and Stephen’s. You can weave all the epicycles you want (mixed metaphor; sorry) and you can refer to the GHG theory and point to flaws in it, but the central issues are the contradictions that if not resolved satisfactorily, prove that the ATE is just plain wrong. I’m sorry. If you want to discard logic and go your separate way, that’s your business.
Silly games? I’ve spent a great deal of time the last couple of days debating the issue, with a goal toward getting to key foundational concepts; I have a sense of humor but I assure you I’m deadly serious, and I’ll not accept any evasions from the hard logic that we seem to have come to.
There can be any number of theories to explain something and they can all be internally consistent and make perfect sense. But, are they consistent with basic laws of physics and with logic? It’s not unknown for theories to take on lives of their own and to be championed and ardently defended, only to later falter when foundational assumptions are proved wrong. Eugenics, perhaps? Others can no doubt think of many, many examples.
No good intent? Yes, there is: the truth, no matter where it falls. That’s the only horse I’ve ever had in this race.
Don132
Don,
I’ve shown you the logical problem for the radiative theory.
If you get an ATE from convection in a non radiative atmosphere then the radiative theory is wrong because it can’t be both. I have given you evidence that established science recognises that convective adjustments neutralise radiative imbalances such as those from GHGs.
You now know that if one switches off convection in Willis’s model then there is no ATE.
If you switch convection on again the ATE comes back.
I can’t add any more if that doesn’t help you.
I note that you seem to have accepted Joe’s implausible assertion that an atmosphere out of hydrostatic equilibrium can somehow be retained. I’ve no idea why you backtracked on that issue.
A fair amount of storms exist at any time on earth’s surface, and above, mostly in the troposphere, so those regions are windier, not hydroststic, but are not blown off into space because the mass does not not reach even a small fraction of escape velocity.
Again, it is just Stephen’s imagination that a non-hydrostatic atmosphere cannot be retained, Stephen simply ignores the observational evidence.
The thread is just about dead, but I just wanted to restate what I feel should be the main question here:
Nikolov and Zeller begin by claiming that the Earth without an atmosphere would have an average surface temperature of 197K. This, I believe, is their most recent calculation.
Current climate dogma is that the average surface temperature without an atmosphere would be about 270K.
Current climate orthodoxy depends on the ~270K figure being the correct one. N&Z’s current claims depends on the ~197K figure being correct. For this, their work depends solely on radiative physics. They also give several citations for prior work by others to support their methodology. I’m not mathematically adept, but I’ve followed their logic the best I could and it makes sense to me.
It’s only after making this claim that they go on, completely separately, to theorize why there is a ~73° discrepancy. Their answer, “atmospheric enhancement” is what everybody seems to be concentrating on. It’s really putting the cart before the horse. All you have to do is try to follow this thread to see why that is unfortunate.
To a layman, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward for somebody to prove, one way or the other, whether the 197K figure is correct. If it’s not, then mission accomplished. If it is, well then orthodox climate science has a problem. Then would be a good time to see if N&Z’s work has any merit.
That doesn’t follow at all since the precise figures are open to discussion in both theories.
What matters is that there is a temperature difference between the S-B prediction and the reality.
It is downward radiation or it is KE released from descending mass.
The issue will not be resolved here.
The issue has been resolved since Earth atm. is observed by and large to be hydrostatic, there is very little available PE to convert to KE. Stephen’s imagination just can’t comprehend observations nor radiation-convective equilibrium which has been known since the 1950s/60s.
“N&Z’s current claims depends on the ~197K figure being correct.”
N&Z do not distinguish between kinetic thermometer temperature & global brightness temperature which depends on surface emissivity and albedo across all illumination angles, frequencies and surface particle size. The equilibrium thermometer field of Earth’s moon is unknown.
There is some indication from Apollo in situ experiments that if the equilibrium global kinetic thermometer field were known, it would be much higher than 197K more like the brightness T 270K but that remains an unknown & source of much discussion on blogs. The topic is not of research interest presently.
Seriously, it wouldn’t be relevant to find out that the people who claim to know the Earth’s temperature to within a tenth of a degree 100 years from now are more that 70 degrees wrong on their initial assumptions?
Makes no difference to the mechanical processes involved what the actual figures are.
The gravitational field is conservative meaning that the work done when moving anything from point A to point B does not depend on the actual path taken, but only on the difference in potential energy at point A, U(A), and the potential energy at point B, U(B). Since A and B are the same [at the surface U(A=0) and U(B=0)], the difference is exactly zero: 0 = U(0) – U(0), therefore the gravitational field does not contribute to heating of the atmosphere. As simple as that.
Leif, gravity can continously contract an atmosphere and continously change mgh to KE (the gas giants not Earth atm.), curious how does your comment allow for that?
https://www.space.com/6229-earth-atmosphere-breathes-rapidly-thought.html
gravity can continously contract an atmospher
No, as the surface is a lower [solid] boundary where contracting must stop.
As the work done depends only on the difference between the potential energy at the starting point [surface] and the end point [the surface again] and not at all on the complicated path that a parcel of air travels from start point to end point and since that difference is zero [altitudes are the same, namely zero meter and zero meter], the work done is also zero and hence no heating results from gravity. This has been known for centuries.
”No, as the surface is a lower [solid] boundary where contracting must stop.”
Well, duh. Before that happens, I was asking about Neptune atm. say still undergoing major gravitational contraction. I’m curious how does your comment allow for that?
Leif,
The way you describe it is a tautology. If you start and end up in the same place, obviously there is no change in net potential energy. Is that the same thing as saying gravity does no work? A lot of energy must have been expended, moving the mass around on its journey before it returned to its start point. If I live on a hill and work in a valley, my car burns a lot of gas in my daily commute but it ends up in the same place at the end of the day so no net change in potential energy. In between, gravity does a huge amount of work. If I coasted down the hill to work I use no gas but gravity is doing a lot of work building up my speed to 60 mph. I then use gas to go up the hill back home. If I do this cycle every day, gravity is providing a lot of work over the week. The potential energy ‘replenished’ by the gas burned going back up hill, but gravity still did generate work each day.
…but gravity still did generate work each day.
Gravity is doing the same “work” all the time, regardless. It’s a curvature of space-time caused the presence of mass, and manifests as an acceleration. Whether you leave your car on the driveway or go off for a trip around the hills, gravity is (effectively) constant; it doesn’t do any more or less “work”.
My mind has changed. The ATE seems to be wrong. Holmes’ equation is circular reasoning; in fact the equation is a tautology and doesn’t prove anything about T or any of the other terms, except that they impact one other. I suspect that NZ have made essentially the same error.
Stephen can’t explain how surface T is enhanced by pressure using his KE/PE formulation. I just don’t get it. The temperature gradient produced by gravity/pressure in no way demonstrates that surface KE is above BB temp, and he refuses to pin down the exact mechanism for surface temperature enhancement or state it clearly, instead saying that I don’t understand (which may be true) or that I need to read this or read that. But, the mechanism is ESSENTIAL, and as such he should have it at the ready and be able to explain it in much less than an elevator speech. That’s the core of his theory and the rest is just refinements of how this fundamental mechanism is manifested in the climate system. If the mechanism can’t be clearly and definitely and succinctly stated then it can’t be attacked or challenged.
This has been long and I’m tired of it.
It was good of Anthony to let this drag on. And tip o’ the hat to Willis, too.
Don132
” I just don’t get it. The temperature gradient produced by gravity/pressure in no way demonstrates that surface KE is above BB temp, ”
.
Of course it does!
The BB temp is at the effective emission height.
From there, the pressure-induced temperature gradient starts (the lapse rate), and temperature rises down through the troposphere to the surface and even below that if there is a depression or a shaft.
The mechanism for temperature enhancement is equally simple; PE gives rise to KE.
Yet again;
When a gas parcel is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
All this is simple, well-known and established physics.
How is this so hard to comprehend?
Holmes:
“The BB temp is at the effective emission height.
From there, the pressure-induced temperature gradient starts (the lapse rate), and temperature rises down through the troposphere to the surface and even below that if there is a depression or a shaft.”
In a GHG-free atmosphere, the effective emissions height is the surface. So then how does the temperature rise above BB?
I think what’s so hard to comprehend is how pressure alone raises temp above BB. Your above demonstration does not prove this; in fact it refutes it, if we consider a GHG-free atmosphere.
PE gives rise to KE; I get it. I don’t get where the extra KE comes from for thermal enhancement above BB temp. Your above example assumes GHGs that raise emissions height above the surface.
Don132
Don, I would hypothesize as follows: a GHG-free atmosphere would, as you say, have its effective emission layer at the surface. So what would be wrong with concluding that the surface temperature would be the same as the BB temperature without any atmosphere? (Not taking into account the atmosphere’s ability to absorb heat from the surface as the planet is warmed on one side, while spinning, then releasing it on the other side – thereby reducing the night/day temperature swings to a certain extent, but not changing the average.)
(And note that’s not Earth we’re talking about, so it doesn’t have to match any actual observations of this planet, or any other one in our solar system.)
“So what would be wrong with concluding that the surface temperature would be the same as the BB temperature without any atmosphere? ”
Without an atmosphere there would be no atmospheric temp.
With a GHG-free atmosphere, I have no problem accepting that the near-surface atmospheric temp would be close to BB.
Don132
“How is this so hard to comprehend?”
Simple, it violates 1LOT as in the top post.
There is no compressor inhabiting the atm. compressing the gas parcels as you write: “When a gas parcel is compressed”. Takes energy to do that; Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. Only happens in their imagination. The top post is correct.
Trick
“Mr. Holmes ”
.
I am Dr Holmes to you.
Dr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. Only happens in their imagination. The top post is correct.
Trick
“Dr. Holmes and Mr. Wilde write as if the energy to do so is just created out of thin air. ”
.
And the GHE doesn’t just pull energy out of thin air?
Trick, you are too funny.
“And the GHE doesn’t just pull energy out of thin air?
No, 1LOT is observed with changes in the opacity of a planetary atm. (commonly aka GHE). Gases have mass thus radiate; some atm. gases are even appropriately referred to as IR-active. The top post is correct Dr. Holmes.
Trick
“No”.
.
That is interesting, that you think that the ATE must pull energy out of thin air and the GHE somehow doesn’t.
Dr. Holmes, the ATE has no way to get Earth’s global temperature median above 255K by increasing surface mean pressure P alone as explained by 2 different authors in top post. Yet 287.4K is where N&Z plot Earth’s green dot Ts/Tna from measurements @ P=100 which includes the full IR opacity of the atm. (GHE). So N&Z do mix in Earth’s natural GHE as well as in the other green dots with atm.s.
There is no observed perpetual contraction of the Earth atm. adding 33K turning mgh (PE) into thermodynamic internal energy (KE) as there is for Jupiter. What IS observed is Earth’s atm. is by and large hydrostatic.
Trick
“There is no observed perpetual contraction of the Earth atm..”
.
Who said there was?
That is not the mechanism whereby the Earth reaches 288K at the surface.
.
“the ATE has no way to get Earth’s global temperature median above 255K by increasing surface mean pressure P alone as explained by 2 different authors in top post. ”
.
As already noted, it is not all about pressure. But they are wrong, and auto-compression exists.
What is not going to warm the atmosphere is IR opacity.
The atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to this forcing.
I have proposed a test to determine whether the GHE is correct or the ATE from auto-compression is correct (both cannot be correct).
This involves gas pressure, density and molar mass measurements on several planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, and varying amounts of GHG in their atmospheres.
”Who said there was?”
Robert Holmes said there was perpetual contraction of the Earth atm.: “This is because GHG are not what set the temperature of the lower atmosphere, insolation and auto-compression do…. auto-compression exists.”
”What is not going to warm the atmosphere is IR opacity.”
That’s actually correct. IR opacity does not warm the entire atm. as the process burns no fuel. Added IR opacity warms the lower, denser regions and equally cools the upper, thinner regions vs. ambient so Robert Holmes is wrong in that there is no reason the atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to sunlight IR opacity forcing.
”I have proposed a test to determine whether the GHE is correct or the ATE from auto-compression is correct (both cannot be correct).”
Someone already did so Robert, IR opacity warming was proven by experiment in an 1861 report to the Royal Society of London & ATE does not exist as it violates 1LOT. By all means replicate the testing and learn something about IR opacity of a gas with incident IR illumination.
Trick;
“Robert Holmes said there was perpetual contraction of the Earth atm.”
.
No I certainly did not. There is no perpetual contraction of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.
You are constantly trying to divert from the science I’m presenting by throwing up straw men.
If the science of the GHE is so settled and strong, why do you need to do this?
.
“Added IR opacity warms the lower, denser regions and equally cools the upper, thinner regions vs. ambient ”
.
No it doesn’t.
.
“..there is no reason the atmosphere would simply expand and cool again in response to sunlight IR opacity forcing”
.
There is a reason; the gas laws.
.
“IR opacity warming was proven by experiment in an 1861 report to the Royal Society of London ”
.
An experiment in a laboratory will show this warming, but in the real atmosphere is different. No paper has ever been published which quantifies warming in the troposphere, and then attributes that warming to GHG.
Robert claims: ”the ATE from auto-compression…Auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.”
Thus Robert states ATE is not perpetual (ATE is actually shown failing 1LOT in top post) while the IR opacity (aka GHE) is perpetual, proven by experiment and in situ observation & changes by changing grey absorbers in a planetary atm.
”If the science of the GHE is so settled and strong, why do you need to do this? No it doesn’t?”
I don’t need to use a strawman & I don’t, I use Robert’s own words verbatim. No it doesn’t…what?
The gas laws easily show a warmer region expansion in volume caused by increase in IR opacity equally offsets the cooler region reduction in volume for no increase in total atm. volume.
Experimenst in a laboratory show this warming just like in the real atm. Observations on the real atmosphere confirm the warming in the lab due to an increase in real IR opacity. All Robert has to do is catch up on reading & understand the papers published quantifying warming in the troposphere from observations, and that attribute that warming to IR opacity increases from GHGs (commonly CO2). Many papers have been published showing how increasing IR opacity works in the lab and in situ. Robert remains behind in his reading & learning about atm. IR opacity.
Thus, bereft of reading and learning from published basic atm. science, Robert resorts to a non-physical ATE as shown failing to comply with 1LOT in the top post.
Trick
“I don’t need to use a straw-man & I don’t, I use Robert’s own words verbatim. ”
.
Sure; in this same post where you said you don’t use a straw-man, and that you use my words ‘verbatim’, you have again misquoted me and introduced yet another straw man!!
Thus;
.
“Thus Robert states ATE is not perpetual.”
.
Of course I said no such thing.
What I said was that auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction.
It is perpetual, as long as there exists insolation from the Sun, but there is no perpetual contraction of the atmosphere.
There is nothing to be gained in a debate here, you are donkey who refuses to learn anything new, and basically you are just wasting my time.
”What I said was that auto-compression is not a perpetual contraction. (Auto-compression) is perpetual as long as there exists insolation from the Sun,..”
Again, Robert your wording is not clear; here you again apparently call auto-compression perpetual but now it is sun driven as this wording substitution is my best guess what is meant by “it”. Name calling is unproductive.
How is your so-called auto-compression process sun driven?
Holmes, let’s say you’re wrong, and that GHGs do indeed affect the atmospheric heat content. How would T = PM/Rρ be violated? Would GHG heating destroy the equation?
Of course GHG produce atmospheric and surface warming. Just consider these two data facts.
1) Satellites measure upcoming IR radiation. Comparison of the IR flux relative to BB temperature curves and known temperature lapse rates of the atmosphere indicate where in the atmosphere that IR originated. The wave lengths involved indicate what GHG produced that IR. (All materials must radiate IR at rates proportional to T^4. Much of your weather forecast depends on this kind of data.) Because radiation flux depends on T^4, that IR coming from the higher, colder atmosphere has a lower flux than IR emitted by the warmer surface and not absorbed by GHG. BECAUSE THE EARTH LOSES HEAT FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE AT A SLOWER RATE DUE TO GHG ABSORPTION, THE EARTH MUST WARM RELATIVE TO A BB.
2) Sophisticated IR radiometers located on the surface measure down-welling IR radiation from the atmosphere. This atmospheric IR commonly reaches ~350 watts/m^2 on a cloudless day. THIS IS MEASURED EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY DEPOSITED IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS RETURENED TO EARTH IN SIZEABLE AMOUNTS. The GHG warmed atmosphere can and does warm the surface.
1) No. In the upper atmosphere heat exchange is dominated by radiative transfers. The situation when density rises above 10kPa is different; there, heat exchange is mainly by other means such as convection.
2) Any IR back-radiation from GHG cannot warm the lower atmosphere. This is because GHG are not what set the temperature of the lower atmosphere, insolation and auto-compression do. And also because warming by ‘special’ gases like GHG are forbidden by the gas laws.
I can hear you say; So what happens to the back-radiation from GHG, and why doesn’t it warm the troposphere?
The net result of any forcing by GHG in the troposphere is to cause atmospheric expansion, and so a 100% negative feedback by cooling – this completely negates the forcing.
@R.H.
On 1) 10 kPa is about 15km altitude where temperature is usually less than -55C. As the great majority of IR emission to space from CO2 rarely shows a temperature below 215-220K (many satellite data), IR emission from <10gPa is essentially non-existent. This comment has no bearing on GHG warming by IR emission.
On 2) In one sense this comment is correct, but not for reasons you think. Warming of the surface and atmosphere occurs because solar radiance cannot escape to space as fast as it arrives, because GHG emission from high, colder atmosphere has slowed Earth's energy loss. Down-welling IR from atmosphere to surface is part of a large energy loop, the other part of which is energy from the surface upward (latent, sensible, IR). Down-welling IR is not the primary cause of warming but is one of the characteristics.
donb
“This atmospheric IR commonly reaches ~350 watts/m^2 on a cloudless day. THIS IS MEASURED EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY DEPOSITED IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS RETURENED TO EARTH IN SIZEABLE AMOUNTS.
The GHG warmed atmosphere can and does warm the surface.”
.
Yes, but; –
There is no justification for a leap to your concluding last sentence.
For a start, there is no scientific evidence at all that the GHG present have ‘warmed’ the atmosphere.
Show me the peer-reviewed paper which quantifies warming in the atmosphere,and then attributes all (or even some) of that warming to rising atmospheric CO2.
I won’t be holding my breath, because no such paper exists.
There IS energy ‘deposited in the (lower) atmosphere’ but it’s not from GHG.
“Show me the peer-reviewed paper which quantifies warming in the atmosphere,and then attributes all (or even some) of that warming to rising atmospheric CO2.”
There are dozens and dozens of ’em published starting even before 1861, apparently spoon feeding Robert will not help, Robert needs to learn from them on his own. Correct climate predictions from added CO2 ppm have even been made from the observational science so Robert is way, way behind in his studies of climate.
Trick
“There are dozens and dozens of ’em published… ”
.
Really?
Yet you cannot cite even ONE?
.
“Correct climate predictions from added CO2… ”
.
That is not what I asked for.
That is not quantifying a tropospheric warming and then attribution to CO2.
WHERE IS THE (IMAGINARY) PAPER?
”That is not quantifying a tropospheric warming and then attribution to CO2. WHERE IS THE (IMAGINARY) PAPER?”
What type of spoon feeding does Robert want? Plastic, pewter, silver or gold? I can cite many such papers from personal experience; the hard way by finding them & actually reading & understanding them.
Given Robert claims to be Dr. Holmes, Robert must be familiar with research library resources. Many reasonably reliable published papers quantifying tropospheric warming and then attribution to added CO2 ppm are therein and other sources are even available for free on the internet. Robert just needs to get busy, find them in the stacks or online then spend time reading & learning from them.
I would though, as I usually do, cite a couple beginner’s texts: Bohren 1998 on Atm. Thermodynamics and Bohren 2006 on Atmosphere Radiation. Dr. Bohren takes the time to cite the masters in the field right back to the original manuscripts he found by actually walking over to the college library, no spoon feeding for him. Have fun Robert.
Trick
“Many reasonably reliable published papers quantifying tropospheric warming and then attribution to added CO2 ppm are there..”
.
Really?
So why is it so difficult to cite even one then?
You are the one who claims that more CO2 will cause warming in the troposphere, the onus is on you – so where is the scientific evidence?
BTW;
This is the correct way to cite the literature;
Bohren, C. F. (1998). and BA Albrecht, Atmospheric Thermodynamics.
Bohren, C. F., & Clothiaux, E. E. (2006). Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation: an introduction with 400 problems. John Wiley & Sons.
”So why is it so difficult to cite even one then?”
It wasn’t diffivult at all, I easily cited two beginning 1st course meteorology texts (yes, Robert found them) for Robert to begin to understand that more CO2 will cause warming in the troposphere & equal cooling in the upper regions based on the scientific evidence. You have your work cut out for you Robert, get busy. Based on that learning, specialist paper reading will begin to make sense to Robert and no spoon feeding will be required.
Don
“Holmes, let’s say you’re wrong, and that GHGs do indeed affect the atmospheric heat content. How would T = PM/Rρ be violated? Would GHG heating destroy the equation?”
.
No, GHG heating would only anomalously change pressure or density or both.
With a climate sensitivity of 3C, this change would be very large and easily measurable.
This is laid out in detail in my last paper, and is a test for the existence of the GHE.
Holmes:
“No, GHG heating would only anomalously change pressure or density or both.
With a climate sensitivity of 3C, this change would be very large and easily measurable.”
So GHG heating wouldn’t change T?
Or is the change in T not proportional to the change in pressure and density? If not, why not?
Don132
If the mechanism can’t be clearly and definitely and succinctly stated then it can’t be attacked or challenged.
That is precisely what the proponents are counting om…
I believed in the ATE theory because I had a basic misunderstanding of how it works.
When I want to understand how it really works and those who uphold the ATE can’t answer a simple request for a statement of their foundational mechanism for raising the necessary KE to provide thermal enhancement above BB temp, that makes me suspicious. Why not? How long have we been arguing this, not just here but elsewhere? How many essays and papers on it? And they can’t state that core mechanism clearly and distinctly?
Don’t tell me that a formula or an equation that’s a tautology proves anything– hello? If you want to “prove” it then the bottom line is you have to have a clear mechanism for the thermal enhancement– a clear, well-stated, explicit, concise, succinct, no-BS, logical, physically plausible mechanism– not a roundabout theory that you claim that everyone has to read and if they don’t wade through it they can’t understand. The mechanism is central and I’m not falling for the “you just don’t understand” strategy. I don’t understand because it’s not stated in an understandable manner, and so proponents talk about PE and KE and atmospheric circulation and this and that and what the hell were we talking about and who cares about the foundational mechanism it all sounds like a good story.
I’m dumb but I’m not stupid.
When they start accusing me of being a troll I get more suspicious.
Don132
Conducted energy recycled indefinitely.
How succinct can one be ?
Stephen:
“Conducted energy recycled indefinitely.
How succinct can one be ?”
It’s succinct. It purports to state that thermal surface enhancement is caused by conducted energy recycled indefinitely. So far as I can see, that explains perfectly how KE conducted from the surface can be recycled in the atmosphere indefinitely and in a GHG-free atmosphere, provide a surface temperature near the average temperature of the KE at the surface. But from there to a surface temperature enhancement is a leap with no connecting steps provided.
That’s a key step. For a theory that’s been around as long as yours, the answer should be at the ready.
I’d always thought that surface density due to pressure was the key, but I was mistaken and as has been repeatedly stated here, temperature measures average kinetic energy and doesn’t care about density.
So how does it work?
Don132
Don, just ignore the name calling, you are on the right track. The top post is correct.
The additional KE required for the ATE is simply KE taken from the surface by conduction and then recycled indefinitely.
There should be no difficulty appreciating that.
No one has noticed that you don’t get an ATE even if you add radiative gases to Willis’s model.
DWIR would initially heat the surface above S-B but that heat would then conduct up the vertical column to create an isothermal atmosphere as before but the top would then be radiating to space at 288k which is more than incoming so the system temperature would then decline back to S-B of 255k. NO ATE with or without radiative gases.
If you then introduce convection to BOTH radiative and non radiative versions then as per my description you get an ATE for both and if atmospheric mass is the same for both then the ATE will be the same.
It is evident that radiative gases have nothing to do with it. It is all about convective recycling of previously conducted KE.
Stephen:
“The additional KE required for the ATE is simply KE taken from the surface by conduction and then recycled indefinitely. There should be no difficulty appreciating that.”
If the KE taken from the surface is then recycled indefinitely, then that explains how KE from the surface can be recycled indefinitely and I have no problem appreciating that. That statement by itself in no way explains the extra KE needed to provide thermal enhancement.
Don132
You have continuing insolation providing 255k
You have 33k recycling via the surface.
Please advise me as to how you think that they should NOT be additive.
How could the recycling 33k have a zero thermal efffect at the surface ?
And do not use the zero sun argument because zero sum does not mean zero energy.
And take into account that the 33k represents energy delayed in its exit to space from the system and as such is bound to add heat to the system via basic thermodynamics.
“You have continuing insolation providing 255k
You have 33k recycling via the surface.”
I think the issue is the 33K recycling. If the above statements are true, then I agree. But I think that a lot of the side arguments going on have been over that issue, and I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to them. In a non-GHG atmosphere you have 255K at the surface, and that’s what can be conducted. The atmosphere can’t be affected by IR radiation. I see how you can get 255K at the surface and that decreases with the lapse rate, and it recycles indefinitely. Where does the extra 33K come from? What’s the key mechanism?
Don132
Once the atmosphere is in place the 255k at the surface does not recycle. It radiates straight out to space at a rate commensurate with a surface temperature of 255k.
Only the 33k recycles and due to the recycling being zero sum does not affect the 255k throughput.
That 33k develops during the formation of the atmosphere (before the first convective cycle ends and the loop closes) as a result on non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection.
Every molecule in an atmosphere has the same total energy but at the top it is cold PE and at the bottom warm KE.
The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is entirely separate to the background radiative throughput of 255k and so must be added to it to give 288k at the surface.
It is also pressure related because conduction efficiency increases at higher densities (caused by higher pressure) which increases atmospheric absorption via non radiative means and raises the amount of KE held by the atmosphere at ground level.
“That 33k develops during the formation of the atmosphere (before the first convective cycle ends and the loop closes) as a result on non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection.”
“as a result of non radiative absorption by the atmosphere via conduction and convection” = 255 K surface temperature and kinetic energy corresponding to that. How does that make an extra 33K? Where does the extra kinetic energy come from ? What’s the key mechanism that holds your whole system together?
The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is separate from the background radiative throughput of 255k.
I’m not sure that any form of words or figures will satisfy you if that doesn’t do it.
Don, that 6:55am et. al. is just Stephen trying to convince you the 33K above 255K for Earth is from a past miracle, produced out of thin air sometime ago and still hanging around. In Stephen’s long held view (since pre-2007), there is no such thing as the changing IR opacity of an atm. But of course, there is such a thing as “at the top it is cold PE “.
The imagined existance of cold PE seems to be new from Stephen. You may want to ask questions about cold PE too.
I meant Stephen’s 5:55am et. al.
Stephen:
“The extra 33k at the surface is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.
It is separate from the background radiative throughput of 255k”
What energy has the atmosphere simply absorbed? From conduction? OK you’ve got your 255K. You need an extra 33K and you’re not answering how you get this except by what I consider a very evasive answer: “… is simply the KE carried by an atmosphere that has previously absorbed energy by non radiative means.” What????? How? Mechanism? Logic? Steps? Physical processes?
You aren’t making your own case very well.
“I’m not sure that any form of words or figures will satisfy you if that doesn’t do it.” State the physical mechanism for the extra 33K. What physical laws do you invoke that make it so? If you can’t do that then I think it’s obvious to everyone that there’s nothing but magic behind it.
Holmes says T = PM/Rρ. But IF there is actually atmospheric warming from GHG, then what would T= PM/Rρ say? Something different? Why would it? It’s a tautology. Both sides must equal out. So Holmes’ proof is built on an assumption that turns around and then proves itself. Is that what science is?
You can’t state your basic mechanism, or so far have not been able to, despite that it’s foundational to your theory!!!
Don132
Don,
I have made it clear repeatedly in many different ways. I have not been at all evasive.
It is simply that you don’t seem able to follow it which I find very strange given that you seem bright enough.
All I can suggest is that you go through my original narrative which can be found near the top of the thread.
Conduction and convection take time and therefore slow down solar energy throughput. That is bound to increase surface temperature. Basic thermodynamics.
This thread is long enough already with exhaustive and accurate responses from me throughout so no need to question me further.
Trick: “Don, that 6:55am et. al. is just Stephen trying to convince you the 33K above 255K for Earth is from a past miracle, produced out of thin air sometime ago and still hanging around.”
I’d like to see where this goes. I realize that there has so far been no convincing explanation for it, other than the assertion that it happens.
Don132
“All I can suggest is that you go through my original narrative which can be found near the top of the thread.”
Can you please link to the exact narrative to which you refer?
I’ll read it carefully.
See below, I’ve run it past a number of people in case I was missing something and they had no problem following the logic:
“i) Start with a rocky planet surrounded by a non-radiative atmosphere such as 100% Nitrogen with no convection.
Assume that there is no rotation to confuse matters, ignore equator to pole energy transfers and provide illumination to one side from a nearby sun.
On the illuminated side the sun heats the surface beneath the gaseous atmosphere and, since surface heating is uneven, gas density differentials arise in the horizontal plane so that warmer, less dense, Nitrogen starts to rise above colder, denser, Nitrogen that flows in beneath and convective overturning of the atmosphere has begun.
After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.
The Nitrogen on the illuminated side, being non-radiative, heats only by conduction from surface to air and cannot assist cooling of the surface by radiating to space.
There will be a lapse rate slope whereby the air becomes cooler with height due to expansion (via the Gas Laws) as it rises along the line of decreasing density with height. That density gradient is created by the pull of gravity on the individual molecules of the Nitrogen atmosphere.
At the top of the rising column the colder denser Nitrogen is pushed aside by the warmer more buoyant and less dense Nitrogen coming up from below and it then flows, at a high level, across to the dark side of the planet where descent occurs back towards the surface.
During the descent there is warming by compression as the Nitrogen moves back down to the surface and then the Nitrogen flows along the surface back to the base of the rising column on the illuminated side whereupon the cycle repeats.
Thus we have a very simplified climate system without radiative gases consisting of one large low pressure cell on the illuminated side and one large high pressure cell on the dark side.
ii) The thermal consequences of convective overturning.
On the illuminated side, conduction is absorbing energy from the surface the temperature of which as observed from space initially appears to drop below the figure predicted by the S-B equation. Instead of being radiated straight out to space a portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is being diverted into conduction and convection. Assume sufficient insolation to give a surface temperature of 255K without an atmosphere and 33K absorbed from the surface into the atmosphere by conduction. The surface temperature appears to drops to 222K. Those figures are illustrative only since there is dispute about the actual numbers for the scale of the so called greenhouse effect.
On the dark side the descending Nitrogen warms as it falls to the surface and when it reaches the surface the cold surface will rapidly pull some of that initially conducted energy (obtained from the illuminated side) out of the descending Nitrogen so that the surface and the Nitrogen in contact with it will become warmer than it otherwise would have been, namely by 33K.
One can see how effectively a cold, solid surface will draw heat from the atmospheric gases by noting the development of radiation fog above cold surfaces on Earth. The cold surface quickly reduces the ground level atmospheric temperature to a point below the dew point.
That less cold Nitrogen then flows via advection across the surface back to the illuminated side which is then being supplied with Nitrogen at the surface which is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been.
That describes the first convective overturning cycle only.
The key point at that stage is that, as soon as the first cycle completes, the second convective cycle does not need to take any further energy from incoming solar radiation because the necessary energy is being advected in by winds from the unlit side. The full effect of continuing insolation can then be experienced once more so the surface goes back up to 255k from 222k.
ADDITIONALLY the air moving horizontally from the dark side to the illuminated side is 33K warmer than it otherwise would have been so the average temperature for the whole sphere actually rises to 288K
Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.
Stephen
You have again displayed the patience of Jove and laid the obvious out in excruciating detail for these global warming (via ATE) deniers.
Well done.
”I’d like to see where this goes.”
Stephen’s comments will never take you anywhere worth going as Stephen will always resort to imaginative responses instead of being a realist about actual climate observations. Many commenters, of course including myself, have tried extensively to realistically reason with Stephen as you are doing, it’s entertaining but the evidence shows totally unproductive in advancing Stephen’s understanding of atm. thermodynamics.
“Where does the extra 33K come from? What’s the key mechanism?’
.
I have explained this repeatedly to you.
in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ ~255*Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law; this being the ‘effective’ or the ‘base’ level. And a gravitationally induced thermal gradient caused by auto-compression provides the ‘other’ ~33*Kelvin, termed the ‘residual’, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin.
The key mechanism;
Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Holmes:
“And a gravitationally induced thermal gradient caused by auto-compression provides the ‘other’ ~33*Kelvin,.” How? Because of this?: “The key mechanism;
Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation; H = PV + U”
I understand why the KE of a gas rises when it descends. You have “x” amount of KE at the surface; it rises, becomes PE and thus loses an amount of KE proportional to the gain in PE, then descends and again has “x” KE. But you’re saying that it’s really “X+33K” of KE. How?
Don132
Don
“I understand why the KE of a gas rises when it descends. You have “x” amount of KE at the surface; it rises, becomes PE and thus loses an amount of KE proportional to the gain in PE, then descends and again has “x” KE. But you’re saying that it’s really “X+33K” of KE. How?”
.
I see where you are confused now.
You don’t have “x” amount of KE at the surface, you have “x” amount of KE in the atmosphere at the top of the convection cycle; THEN as we descend through the troposphere we gain MORE KE until we reach the surface, where we then have “x” + 33K of KE.
It’s the descent through the troposphere which adds the 33K of KE.
The 33K comes from auto-compression, (or if you like, the lapse rate).
Stephen:
“Since that 33K flowing across from the dark side goes straight up again via conduction to fuel the next convective overturning cycle and therefore does not radiate out to space, the view from space would show a radiating temperature for the planet of 255K just as it would have done if there were no atmosphere at all.
“In that scenario both sides of the planet’s surface are 33K warmer than they otherwise would have been, the view from space satisfies the S-B equation and radiation in from space equals radiation out to space. Radiative capability within the atmosphere not required.”
If the atmosphere isn’t absorbing or radiating any IR, and if both the dark side and the light side surfaces are 33K warmer than they would have been, then isn’t the planet radiating 288K, which is 33K more than it receives?
How can that be?
Don132
You haven’t followed it have you?
I can’t help you.
Perhaps I can just point out that when conduction is active it draws energy from the surface so that if you take 33k into the convective loop from the surface at 288k then the surface temperature should drop to 255k but if you are also feeding in another 33k at the same time then the surface stays at 288k and does not drop to 255k.
You then get a surface at 288k radiating to space at 255k and conducting into the atmosphere at 33k.
It is an accounting issue which you cannot seem to grasp.
The ‘extra” that you may think is unaccounted for is actually in storage within the atmosphere as 33K worth of PE which does not show up as heat so that the ENERGY (not heat) budget fully balances.
“You then get a surface at 288k radiating to space at 255k and conducting into the atmosphere at 33k.”
So the atmosphere is at 255K plus 33K = 288K? Or is the atmosphere at 33K, which I don’t consider any type of thermal enhancement? If the atmosphere is at 255K and is recirculating 33K, then the surface temp is enhanced by 33K — correct me if I’m wrong but that’s the whole point. Then of necessity the atmosphere is conducting some of the 33K to the surface, which as you say (I think) is at 255K, plus at least part of 33K = more than 255K, and so therefore the surface must be radiating more than it takes in.
????
That’s some accounting.
Don132
@Don
Both surface and atmosphere are at average temperature of 283.
Imagine the surface is at 255 and not GHG warmed. Suddenly add full measure of GHG. Now the surface + atmosphere still receives the same solar insolation, BUT the surface can no longer lose that energy at the rate of before. GHG have slowed the loss process. What happens? The surface + atmosphere must warm because they are gaining heat faster than before. They warm to 288K and now solar energy in equals IR out and equilibrium is established again at 288K
Consider the crude overcoat analogy. You don an overcoat on a cold day. Because conduction of body heat through the overcoat takes time, your body is not losing heat as rapidly as before. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be established between rate your body produces heat and the rate it loses it through the overcoat. The rate of heat loss will again be the same as before the overcoat (because body heat generation is the same), BUT your body has warmed in order to maintain that energy loss. Your body now has a lower radiation emissivity, just as the Earth does with presence of GHG.
QED
Stephen:
“33K worth of PE which does not show up as heat so that the ENERGY (not heat) budget fully balances”
And when the 33K worth of PE that does not show up as heat, when it gets to the surface it does show up at heat, which I thought was the point???
Bottom line, you are asserting that the near-surface atmosphere gets up to 288K surface temp (that’s the whole point!) and if so then it MUST conduct with the surface and raise the surface temp, causing the surface to emit more than it receives.
If you’re saying that the atmosphere is absorbing 33K worth of energy and so the total incoming isn’t 255K but 255 + 33 from absorption of surface KE to atmosphere, and the energy balances out because incoming isn’t actually 255 K but rather 255K surface + 33K incoming to atmosphere via surface (so that in effect the atmosphere is acting like an extension of the mass of the surface through its conduction with the surface) and so even if the atmosphere warms the surface above 255K (which it must) so that it radiates above 255K, energy in (including energy in to the atmosphere) still equals out, then maybe I’d accept that. But you haven’t stated anything like that except in the most convoluted, obscure, and roundabout way.
Anyhow I just want this to be over, I’m tired, and I’ll probably have to set up a block on WUWT so I don’t have to look at any of this any more.
Don132
PE does not register as heat. Therefore PE is cold.
Joe, that is an interesting comment and the math is a bit involved for a casual perusal. But I am very skeptical that there is any mechanism that can “cull lower-velocity molecules from a gas as it ascends”. That sounds like a Maxwell’s Demon. Remember, it’s not the entire gas that’s ascending (or descending) here – it’s individual molecules. I think the authors of that paper have simply swept the kinetic to potential energy conversion under the rug and pretended that it doesn’t happen. What do they presume happens to the lower-velocity molecules that get “culled”? They just vanish? If not, those molecules will change the energy distribution at lower altitudes relative to higher ones. In other words, if some process is affecting the vertical distribution of lower-velocity molecules but not higher-velocity ones in the column, then that would contradict your statement that the (kinetic) energy probability distribution of groups of molecules is the same all the way up.
Without a gravitationally induced pressure difference resulting in a temperature gradient, how would the authors of this paper explain the dry adiabatic lapse rate? Solely by radiative transfer? Or perhaps by convection? A purely nitrogen atmosphere would not have a DALR?
Also I am not at all convinced that either Willis or Dr. Brown is relying on this analysis, even if it were correct, which it doesn’t sound like it is. Instead, both of them came up with nonsensical (and different) counter-arguments, to buttress their beliefs, which leads me to believe that they “remembered” no such thing.
Anthony Banton tried to suggest up thread that Gravity was not responsible for the molecules descending, he said the cause was Convergence.
But this is the definition of Convergence
Definition of Convergence aloft.
“Convergence aloft causes surface pressures to rise
Air diverges from high pressure systems at the surface
Surface winds flow clockwise and outward in NH
Air sinks, warms, and dries, inhibiting cloud formation”
Air sinks, why does it sink if not Gravity?
Air Warms, why does it warm if not from compression, if it warmed from contact with the warmer lower atmosphere then that would cool the lower atmosphere twice?
Steve Keppel-Jones:
No. They fall. If two vertically ascending molecules have respective upward velocities of
and 
at 
, the first, slower one will be “culled” at 
because that’s where its upward travel stops and its downward travel starts. But the second, faster one will survive that altitude and climb all the way to 
.
And of course it’s individual molecules rather than the entire gas that’s ascending or descending; otherwise the molecular velocities we’re talking about aren’t those on which temperature is based.
Also, I’m pretty sure that at least Dr. Brown had the exponential distribution in mind. Coombes and Laue were widely discussed in the comments on his head post, because in arguing for isothermality he said, “Exponentials are self-similar functions,” and it is that self-similarity that results in isothermality, as you’d have seen if you’d gone through my math or Coombes and Laue’s.
As I say, I disagreed with Dr. Brown because I think the distribution only approximates exponential, whereas he thinks it’s exact. But, again, the approximation is so good as not to make any difference in practice from exactly exponential.
Beyond that, I can’t help you; the math says what it says, and you just say you don’t believe it. With all due respect, do you really think you’re entitled to an opinion if you can’t do the math?
Joe, sure, the math says what it says, but math and the real world have to be carefully correlated in order to be useful. I’m not convinced the correlation has been done correctly here. The velocity distribution of molecules in a gas (given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation) is not a simple exponential, so drawing conclusions from the basic self-similarity of exponentials in general seems to be a stretch. It is also dependent on absolute temperature T, which we are hypothesizing is dependent on altitude because of the exchange of kinetic and potential energy as molecules rise. And the shape (not just the magnitude) of the distribution curve varies quite widely as T changes. So you can’t use any observations about the shape of that distribution to make any conclusions about the variability or constancy of T with altitude. That would make a circular argument.
Finally, there are significant problems with trying to use equations defined for ideal gases, like Maxwell-Boltzmann, for real gases, which do not behave the same as ideal gases – especially when the pressure is not 0. The size of the problems vary with the pressure.
What am I missing? Especially since experiment seems to agree with me, according to Graeff… I’m a big fan of believing in theories that agree with experiments.
Steve Keppel-Jones:
But the Maxwell-Bolzmann velocity distribution implies a simply exponential kinetic-energy distribution.
Look, I’m sure you honestly believe everything you say. But it’s as though the math in your universe is different from the math in mine. So I doubt that further any further effort on my part will lead to any further enlightenment on yours.
But I did try to help.
Don, if you will not check what I told you, and I have given it already, you prove one thing. You are merely like any 1st year Arts student rabbitting on about he knows not what. A total waste of time. Brett
Sorry Brett, but I’m not sitting here with all the time in the world to check what everyone is saying. I’m taking it a bit at a time; so far I’ve discovered that Holmes is just engaging in circular logic, as has been noticed before me, and right now I’m focused on seeing if Stephen makes any sense.
If you want to persist in attacking my character then I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Don132
Don
“so far I’ve discovered that Holmes is just engaging in circular logic..”
.
Where is the circular logic?
I have already explained this several times, there is no circular logic.
.
“So GHG heating wouldn’t change T?”
.
Yes of course it would.
If pressure or density changes the GHG heating would change T according to the formula.
Again; – this is a proposed test of both my hypothesis and the GHE hypothesis!!!!
Who was the smart person who once said;
“When you are really tired of explaining something, that is only when others just start to hear it!”
If you’re claiming that T = PM/Rρ for all planets and that proves your theory, then that’s circular logic. However, I’m not sure you’re claiming that. I don’t think that formula is anywhere near the foundation of your theory.
But now I’m a bit suspicious of what people claim or think they claim; when I earlier stated that “density” is the key because I misunderstood the theory, Stephen chimed in and said yes, that’s right. But no, it’s not right.
The idea that incoming energy must include energy incoming to the atmosphere as well might make some sense. By that logic, the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection. But that’s a layman’s logic so would be interesting to hear the pros debate it.
Don132
I just said that density is relevant because greater density increases the efficiency of conduction but density is just a consequence of mass and gravity creating pressure.
It is all linked together via the gas laws.
This Web page illustrates a sequence that has played out time and again over the years and will be repeated for years to come.
Someone who knows the physics tries to help the tyro. The explainer cites a fact that, for people who had received the logic gene, would dispose of the matter. When the tyro then seems to grasp the fact, the explainer initially thinks he’s succeeded. But then the tyro reaches a conclusion just the opposite of what the facts imply; it turns out that the tyro just hadn’t received the logic gene. It’s no moral failing on the tyro’s part; he didn’t ask to come out illogical. But that’s what happened.
Finding it hard to accept that anyone could fail to grasp something so clear, the explainer may persist for a while. But he ultimately recognizes the futility and gives up.
I explained above, for example, that energy can enter or leave a perfectly transparent atmosphere only by conduction from or to the planet’s surface; a perfectly transparent atmosphere can’t radiate. (Convection moves energy around only within the atmosphere, not between the atmosphere and the surface, although it can affect where on the surface the conduction occurs.) The logical conclusion is that on a long-term basis the net conductive flow between the entire atmosphere and entire surface has to be zero if the atmospheric temperature is not to have a trend toward zero or infinity.
Therefore, no one who has the logic gene would say something like, “the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection.” But people will indeed say things like that. Some people just didn’t get the logic gene. That doesn’t make them trolls; it just makes them immune to instruction.
So the people who really know what they’re talking about just give up and leave the field to delusional disputants like Mr. Wilde who beguile the tyro with falsehoods and irrelevant facts. Regrettable, but ’twas ever thus.
There speaks the chap who thinks an atmosphere out of hydrostatic equilibrium can be retained.
The thing is that the convective overturning model is agreed to show a net zero energy transfer between atmosphere and surface. It has to be net zero to avoid destabilising the background solar energy throughput of 255k otherwise one would lose the atmosphere.
The radiative theory, in contrast, is NOT net zero and is therefore unsustainable.
Every time back radiation warms the surface a little of the upward radiation from that warming is bounced back down again in a infinite feedback loop.
Not possible.
”There speaks the chap who thinks an atmosphere out of hydrostatic equilibrium can be retained.”
Earth atm. out of hydrostatic equilibrium happens in every storm system and yet the atm. in the storm system is retained as wind speeds do not reach escape velocity. Meteorologist Edward N. Lorenz explained that in 1955, Stephen just doesn’t understand existing basic meteorology.
Good comment Joe Born, I learned a new word, the tyros like Stephen comment unwisely since they don’t bother to read up on & learn from basic meteorology knowledge that’s been readily available since 1955.
Joe Born:
I take your comments to heart. Which means that I don’t have enough understanding of physics to be able to say much of anything.
It would be hard for me to believe that through my past accomplishments and my philosophy degree that I don’t have the logic gene, as I think you’re addressing me at least indirectly (maybe directly!) I’m willing to admit that I talk nonsense at times but that’s because I’m a layman trying to understand a field he has virtually zero training in. Maybe that’s a big mistake and a waste of everyone’s time.
Let me point out that convection is simply conduction within a fluid atmosphere. Therefore conduction from the surface and convection in the atmosphere are linked processes. I state that with calm aplomb, and I may be wrong.
“Some experts do not consider convection to be a fundamental mechanism of heat transfer since it is essentially heat conduction in the presence of fluid motion. They consider it to be a special case of thermal conduction, known as “conduction with fluid motion”. On the other hand, it is practical to recognize convection as a separate heat transfer mechanism despite the valid arguments to the contrary.” https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/heat-transfer/convection-convective-heat-transfer/convection-vs-conduction/
“Although sometimes discussed as a third method of heat transfer, convection is usually used to describe the combined effects of heat conduction within the fluid (diffusion) and heat transference by bulk fluid flow streaming.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Conduction
I think that makes this statement of yours wrong: “Convection moves energy around only within the atmosphere, not between the atmosphere and the surface, although it can affect where on the surface the conduction occurs.”
Feel free to point out the flaws in my logic. I’m always willing to learn.
Don132
Stephen:
“Density is indeed the critical issue as I’ve been saying since 2007.
The reason being that greater density leads to more effective conduction.” But that does not lead to higher KE!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2574193
Highly misleading, and wrong!!!
Don132
Density is derived from mass and gravity which together determine pressure which leads to density.
Density determines the efficiency of conduction and therefore KE.
Not misleading and not wrong.
Stephen,
Correct answer: “Sorry, I was wrong. Density isn’t central to the theory but derivative. Other factors are much more important. What I said was misleading.”
Don132
Density is the consequence of other factors but still the primary influence on the effectiveness of conduction so not really ‘derivative’ at all.
But this isn’t about mere semantics.
Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.
Radiative imbalances are neutralised by convective adjustments:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
Established science.
”Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE”
ATE fails 1LOT as in top post. Observationally auto-compression KE gain in descent is exactly balanced by the auto-expansion KE loss in ascent for no 33K of warming from conduction/convection.
Gravitational field of earth is not in power units only an acceleration. Stephen has never shown 33K derived from these two remaining measurements: atmospheric mass plus the acceleration of Earth gravity field
g=9.807 m/s^2
Earth mass: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
Yet radiative-convective equilibrium can calculate both the 288K and 255K from observed input.
In Stephen’s link, the author is merely discussing atm. exhibits neutral buoyancy along the lapse rate slope which is established science.
Don132:
Perhaps you have it but in this thread have just hidden it well. Or perhaps you’re among the many who mistake learning for logic. Consider in this connection your last response’s focus on my parenthetical remark about why I didn’t mention convection.
It’s true, of course, that different people describe convection differently and that the way I prefer to look at it isn’t everyone’s preference. But a logical thinker would recognize that nothing turns on whether my parenthetical statement was correct.
The point is that radiation is the only way in which energy enters or leaves a planet, and, if the planet’s atmosphere is perfectly transparent, that way is limited to absorption and emission at the surface. This is true independently of whether you call the heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere conduction, convection, or both.
The atmosphere doesn’t radiate, that is, so at steady state the surface radiates all that the planet receives from space and no more, while on average the net heat flow between the surface and the atmosphere must be zero: a non-radiative atmosphere can’t make the surface radiate more than it would in the atmosphere’s absence.
It was therefore a tangent to focus on my parenthetical remark, and going off on tangents is what illogical people tend to do.
Give a person facts and you give him knowledge.
Teach a person to logically think and you give him wisdom.
Stephen:
“Density is the consequence of other factors but still the primary influence on the effectiveness of conduction so not really ‘derivative’ at all.
But this isn’t about mere semantics.
Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.
Radiative imbalances are neutralised by convective adjustments.”
Instead of focusing on what could be a key issue for you, which you glossed over (apparently still unrecognized!!!), you just keep repeating things like “Atmospheric mass plus the power of the gravitational field combined with conduction and convection cause the ATE.” This is a restatement of your belief but is in no way a demonstration of its validity.
What do you expect me to think? That you’ve got all the answers but that no one understands because they keep on insisting on logical steps that follow physical laws?
And your density answer is still BS. It’s not the key to any part of your theory; we all know what density is and does and NO ONE disputes it. NO ONE is arguing over it. The confusion I had was over your statement that it was key; it took a logical conundrum presented by PJF to convince me otherwise. And I’m still pissed that you let me believe that it had much at all to do with your theory, and that you’re not man enough to admit that what you said was misleading. For cripes sake we all make mistakes or say things we shouldn’t have, and then we generally apologize afterwards. But apparently not HE WHO CANNOT BE WRONG.
And yet you continue! Hello? Do you think we’re all that stupid? The only think you’re accomplishing is adding to the conclusion that maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about after all, and just insist on being right in your own world no matter what the rest of the world says. You’re doing a great job of making the case against yourself.
So at least in all this tremendous, huge waste of time and energy we can see one thing: you cannot be wrong. Even if you are.
Don132
What logical conundrum from PJF ?
Myself:
“the earth isn’t taking in 255K really; it’s taking in 255K plus what the atmosphere is absorbing not through radiation, but through conduction/convection.” The atmosphere is absorbing energy through conduction/convection, which leads me to think that maybe when we assume the energy “in” without GHG (or even with) must be 255K, it might actually be closer to 288K because now the atmosphere isn’t radiating but the heat in the atmosphere is being directed back toward the surface. With GHG the extra energy is radiated by the atmosphere.
Just a thought. Just thinking. Just a statement. It came directly from what Holmes said and was because I was thinking about what he said, although I notice that neither Holmes not Stephen has elaborated on that. Show me how that’s wrong– not that I’m going to hang around any longer– and I’ll do what I’ve done several times here: admit I’m fu*king wrong. If I were as illogical as you say then I’d insist on things that weren’t true, and although I can be accused of not understanding enough physics to be intelligent about all this, I can’t be accused of sticking to facts that have been demonstrated to be wrong, as several times here I’ve openly and explicitly admitted I was wrong and that I had the wrong idea.
I’m looking at both sides and trying to figure it out the best I can, and I want to hear the logic of both sides, and in case you haven’t noticed I’ve been pretty hard on Stephen and Holmes.
So piss off.
Don132
Well, you have been hard on me and Robert but I see that as a legitimate exercise as long as you are polite about it.
With GHG the extra heat is radiated down from the atmosphere but every time that happens there is some of the extra heat radiated back up and then back down again for an infinite positive feedback loop that would destroy hydrostatic equilibrium. Since we still have an atmosphere that cannot be happening. It is a non zero sum process.
With the mass induced effect there IS a zero sum surface / atmosphere exchange so that hydrostatic equilibrium is preserved.
We still have an atmosphere so which is more likely correct ?
I still don’t see what your problem is with the concept of a solar radiative throughput of 255k straight through the system plus a discrete conductive / convective loop requiring enough energy to support an additional 33k at the surface.
The extra 33k obviously comes from recycling the same energy over and over after an initial charge up period so I really don’t see why you keep asking where that extra 33k comes from.
After all, one cannot have the same unit of kinetic energy being radiated out to space at the same time as it is conducted to another molecule.
That would be the true breach of 1 LOT but that doesn’t trouble Trick at all.
@Don123
You should study the concept of EMISSIVITY, which is a measure of the efficiency by which a body can lose energy by radiation and which depends on the nature of the body surface.
By possessing a lower emissivity, an object (e.g. the Earth) can receive energy at some rate, but be unable to radiate away that energy at the same rate. Consequently, the body must warm in order to lose energy at the rate acquired. Greenhouse gases lower Earth’s emissivity.
The emissivity concept is often used in industry to estimate temperature where other means are impractical.
My question/statement about the atmosphere’s absorption of energy was a direct response to this from Holmes:
Holmes:
” Mechanism;
Now we get to the objection.
The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.”
So conduction/convection may not be important to Joe Born, but apparently they are to Holmes.
Since Joe Born doesn’t like it that I restate Holmes’ position in a way that might make sense– by way of getting him to explain exactly how the extra 33K comes into being– and accuses ME of presenting an illogical statement, then I think instead of me butchering Holmes’ idea of absorption and emissivity it’s up to Holmes to speak for himself.
I’m pretty sure that Stephen doesn’t make any sense. I was trying to find out if Holmes did.
All of us can understand bare-bones logic if the arguments are laid out in an unambiguous manner, and my suspicion is that Joe Born knows a bit less about logical arguments than he thinks he does.
End of venting.
Don132
Don
“And when the 33K worth of PE that does not show up as heat, when it gets to the surface it does show up at heat, which I thought was the point???”
.
Don’t mix up heat and temperature (KE) They are NOT the same.
PE essentially becomes KE during descent in an adiabatic process!!
“PE essentially becomes KE during descent in an adiabatic process!!”
The PE becomes KE at the same temperature and density as the surroundings in adiabatic process, there is no warming which is the reason the process is termed adibatic. The top post is correct, any warming from that kind of process violates 1LOT which Robert ought to know.
Stephen just always imagines warming occurs in such a process, an imagination does not have to comply with natural laws like 1LOT.
Trick
“…there is no warming which is the reason the process is termed adibatic.”
.
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself again.
That is not the reason the process is adiabatic, its termed adiabatic because there is no warming from any external source.
When PE essentially becomes KE through this process;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
Then there is a temperature rise.
”its termed adiabatic because there is no warming from any external source.”
Correct Robert!
No surface warming (no ATE) from any external source as PE essentially becomes KE during air parcel descent in an adiabatic process as explained in the top post. The descending air gain in KE from ATE does no surface warming above ambient 255K as that is ruled out by 1LOT – since there is no external source of energy for autocompression or warming above ambient.
The descending air is continually equilibrated to local ambient density, temperature and pressure for no warming from an external source like there is from IR opacity increases due IR illumination (sunlight) which can increase surface atm. temperature from 255K to 288K while equally cooling the upper regions consistent with conservation of energy (1LOT).
Of course there is a temperature rise but only from diabatic processes.
Leif, you starmen make the mistake of thinking all gases behave as if in Criticallity. That is not so. Maxwell knew that, N+Z do and I do too. As for the silliness of those who falsely allege, continually, that the sun is not our ‘heating’ agent when the AU ratio is a factor in the ATE along with gravity ‘g’? Past parody. A false flag operation, sad. Brett
You make no sense. Try again.
And BTW I’m really a geophysicist.
The Sun is an incidental interest of mine.
FINAL ANSWER to 1LOT
Let’s back-track a little.
The no-atmosphere BB for Earth is said to be 255K.
The actual is measured to be 288K.
Therefore there is assumed to be an effect from the ‘presence of atmosphere’ of 33K.
Let’s take this as a postulate for the moment.
Where does this 33K of ‘extra’ warming come from?
Well, we know that the mean radiating height, and its associated temperature of 255K is high up in the troposphere.
And we also know that there exists a lapse rate, which averages 6.5K/km down from that level to the surface.
So if the mean radiating height is around 5km, then this lapse rate accounts for all of the ‘presence of atmosphere’ warming of 33K.
OK.
So where does the lapse rate come from?
I propose that this is actually both a thermal gradient and the 33K thermal enhancement itself, and if there is a cause for this other than the greenhouse effect, then it would leave no room at all for a greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases.
Can it be shown that there is another cause?
I would argue yes.
I also would argue that the 33K thermal enhancement would be exactly the same whether there were ‘GHG’ in the atmosphere or not.
Mechanism;
Now we get to the objection.
The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.
Now, what is the nature of this thermal gradient, and why does it appear in all planetary atmospheres in regions of >10kPa?
It is auto-compression. At any one time, basically 50% of the atmosphere is descending, and 50% is rising.
Now, remember what temperature actually is;
Temperature in a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas.
When a gas expands adiabatically, as it does when rising in a gravitational field, it does positive work – and the kinetic energy drops and so the temperature drops. However, when a gas is compressed, as it is when it descends adiabatically in a gravitational field, then it does negative work, and its kinetic energy rises and so its temperature goes up. Why does the kinetic energy of the gas rise when descending? It’s because some of its potential energy is converted to enthalpy, so producing an increase in pressure, specific internal energy and hence, temperature in accordance with the following equation;
H = PV + U
Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)
In short, kinetic energy is gained during descent; remember that kinetic energy is essentially what we measure with a thermometer – so the temperature goes up.
There is no paradox.
Also there is no room for any warming from greenhouse gases – all the 33K of warming has already been accounted for.
Why don’t the GHG warm the troposphere?
Because, as soon as a forcing appears from them, in that instant the atmosphere expands a little – and cools. This is a 100% negative feedback to any GHG forcing.
Why?
Three reasons;
This is because the ideal gas laws (and its derivative, the molar mass version) disallow any ‘special’ gases.
And because the GHE is not what determine planetary temperatures; basically only insolation and auto-compression do.
And because back-radiation from a colder surface cannot warm a warmer surface.
I’ve not followed comments closely for the past day.
Holmes: “The objection is that a non-GHG atmosphere would offer no resistance to the outgoing energy radiating from the surface.
My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.
The vast majority is lost via other means, primarily convection, this is because in regions of atmospheres where the pressure is >10kPa, a thermal gradient (i.e. the lapse rate) is always set up, and as long as solar insolation keeps coming in, convection will also ensue.”
That’s an intriguing answer that makes sense to me. I didn’t notice the response to one of my earlier comments that stated that the atmosphere in a sense acts as an extension of the surface, so that energy “in” = energy hitting the surface as well as energy continually recirculating in atmosphere; i.e., not just the surface receives the sun’s energy.
What I see is that Stephen claimed this is a one-time event at the formation of the atmosphere (if I understand) whereas you’re saying that conduction/convection is always drawing energy off from the surface.
If the above is correct, then that’s the key mechanism for the theory to work. Interesting to hear of objections to that.
Don132
Don.
Looks like a rest has helped you.
There is indeed a one time event to charge the atmosphere with PE in the first place but after that it runs as proposed.
“The no-atmosphere BB for Earth is said to be 255K.”
That’s a strawman put up by Robert who then fights his own strawman.
Actually the premise for debate is a nearly transparent Earth atmosphere (surface emissivity rounded to 1, say all N2 ) with constant albedo 0.3 is said to be about 255K as that is the global brightness temperature of Earth as satellite measured over 4-12+ annual periods.
Don writes: ”you’re saying that conduction/convection is always drawing energy off from the surface.”
Yes, and the objection is that conduction/convection is always returning energy in the exact same amount of energy/sec per unit area removed back TO the surface (downdrafts, precipitation observed over multi-annual periods) as the process cycles without the burning of a fuel. The sun powers the cycle by burning a fuel.
Contrary to Robert’s & Stephen’s prose, the atm. is observed by and large hydrostatic so there is very little atm. PE available to turn into KE at any given time in Earth’s atmosphere. To learn about this basic meteorology, read meteorologist EN Lorenz’ 1955 paper google string: Available Potential Energy and the Maintenance of the General Circulation
I can’t understand Lorenz’s math!
Granted that net energy the atmosphere absorbs (via conduction/convection) would be returned to the surface in exactly the manner you say in a GHG-free atmosphere, my question is, wouldn’t the atmosphere continually have energy beyond what the surface has because it’s absorbed energy from the surface, which is recirculating as it were?
If the earth emits 255K and the surface atmosphere is 33K higher, then doesn’t that mean that somewhere GHG’s are emitting 33K? If not, why not?
Simply questions maybe, but answers would help clear up my understanding/misunderstanding.
Don132
I think the correct answer is, “who cares?” We’re not going to burn up from CO2, so it doesn’t really matter to us laymen which theory is correct. The people who know about this stuff are arguing endlessly so I can’t have any hope of sorting it out.
I just can’t devote any more energy to this; enough is enough. It’s been sucking way too much of my time.
Don132
Just reading Lorenz’ prose is good enough to understand Robert’s, Stephen’s arguments about PE to KE are not supported by basic meteorology. Ignorance of the law or the math is no defense for them.
”Interesting to hear of objections to that.”
The 1LOT based objection to increase above 255K in the top post remains undefeated by Robert.
Robert’s explanation: “It is auto-compression. At any one time, basically 50% of the atmosphere is descending, and 50% is rising.” causing the 33K temperature increase above 255K fails the 1LOT as the adiabatic process described must then create 33K of KE out of nothing as it alone burns no fuel. Observationally auto-compression KE gain in descent is exactly balanced by the auto-expansion KE loss in ascent for no 33K of warming above 255K.
Stephen terms these processes adiabatic which is true, no 33K net warming above 255K can occur from them. Stephen’s solution is imagining a miracle source of 33K energy above 255K happened in some diabatic process eons ago and remains today. If that imagined process confuses Don, it should.
Trick, I agree with what you say.
If there’s any hope for the ATE theory then it seems to be sinking in a sea of circular reasoning that continually misses the point– as if Holmes and Stephen don’t understand their own theory. At the very least, so far as I can see they continually evade the heart of the matter, the extra 33K, or else explain it “again and again” in a way that I can’t say makes any sense. Sorry.
I’m really pissed off at Stephen’s “density” comment which was uncalled-for and basically BS and led me down the wrong path. So although I can’t say my mind is completely made up– I try to keep an open mind about these things (!!!!!)– I’m beginning to think the ATE theory might just be self-deception.
I really gotta go. Maybe someone will say something that answers some questions I have about my own misunderstanding and then I can pitch in, but otherwise I really gotta go.
Don132
Don;
“..not just the surface receives the sun’s energy.’
.
Yes of course; the entire atmosphere receives and is warmed by the Sun’s energy, as well as the surface.
The Sun emits radiation in all frequencies, including in the LW.
Here is the Solar emissions curve, which is 6 million times bigger than Earth’s;
Sun.org black body spectrum, (2017). Accessed 4/4/2017 http://www.sun.org/uploads/ima
ges/mainimage_BlackbodySpectrum_2.png
Here is the fake Solar curve, often pushed by climate alarmists;
American Chemical Society, (2017). Accessed 17/3/2017 https://www.acs.org/content
/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html
Holmes,
Your links aren’t complete: have to include both lines.
You’ll have to tie it all together because there are a lot of skeptics and I’m acting as a neutral observer who wants to see the arguments laid out clearly and honestly.
“My answer is that only a small portion of the energy lost from the Earth’s surface is via radiation, because of the presence of a thick atmosphere.” As you say. So what are the implications of this for your theory? A lot of us are having trouble understanding how, even as PE/KE circulate, that can lead to an extra 33K above the 255K emissions temp. It looks to me like there are some steps missing; if it’s in your paper I’d have to re-read but would be best for all if you could just restate so everyone knows exactly what you’re referring too.
Don132
Robert
Best to ignore Trick, he satisfies the definition of a troll.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt for years but to no avail.
He misrepresents both other posters’ comments and his technical sources and then gets all patronizing as a boost to his own ego.
That’s wrong Stephen 4:26am, I quote sources verbatim with clips such that the context can be easily found. On the other hand, Stephen quotes NO reliable published meteorological sources and relies 100% on Stephen’s own imagination of atm. processes instead of actual observations and experiment. Readers can take their pick of which commenting style is actually reliable and more informative.
Stephen
I think you are right.
He constantly misquotes me or throws up straw men.
He even denies that when PE converts to KE that this does not cause a higher temperature – even though temperature itself is only a measure of KE!
It is impossible to debate someone who denies basic gas thermodynamics.
I think I made that pretty clear a couple of days ago, all 3 of us have “previous” on other threads on this subject.
The discussion so far appears to me to have been heavily dominated by alternative theorists of disparate kinds whose only points of common agreement are that a) the greenhouse effect (GE) is fundamentally wrong in concept, and b) atmospheres are somehow elevating the surface temperatures above their black-body temperatures without needing any additional energy-inputs besides insolation.
Well, all that I can say about (a) is that I am still waiting for someone to show me how the theoretical concept of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally – or even superficially – wrong and that whatever the alternative theorists’ reasons for rejecting it might be, I’ve never seen them properly expounded or explained.
With regard to (b) I have somewhat more to say.
First, I think there may have been some confusion about whether people have been discussing surface temperatures, or near-surface atmospheric temperatures. It’s a tricky issue because the actual surface from which energy is radiating may have a different temperature to the lower atmosphere, even where the lower atmosphere is in actual contact with the surface. If you can get your atmospheric gas laws sorted out properly, you may be able to predict actual near-surface atmospheric temperatures, but that still will not necessarily enable you to predict actual surface temperatures. According to N&Z’s 2017 paper, their proclaimed “discovery” only applies to near-surface temperatures. And as far as I have been able to understand, Stephen Wilde’s and Robert Holmes’s theories do likewise.
However, the basic principle of the greenhouse effect relates explicitly to the actual surface-radiation and does not involve the specific thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be refuted by any argument from atmospheric thermodynamics.
Second, a planetary body’s so-called “black body temperature” is an ideal theoretical temperature that is the maximum possible global mean surface temperature which the absorbed insolation could support by itself and without being supplemented by energy from another source. That is why the discovery in our solar system of actual planetary surface temperatures well above their ideal black body temperatures demanded a second energy source besides the absorbed insolation to explain it in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics (a.k.a. the “energy conservation law”). The greenhouse effect fulfils this requirement, but all the alternative theories which I have seen so far don’t.
Third, I notice that there has been quite a bit of discussion here about the temperature of the air at the bottom of the atmosphere and the fact that the temperature of a gas is a metric for the average kinetic energy of its molecules. A C Osborn has asked me to name the “driving variables” which determine the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere and I thought it might be a good idea to reply to him here where any other people who are interested in the same issue might have a better chance of seeing it, instead of replying directly under his request higher up in the thread.
I think the driving variables of the global near-surface atmospheric temperature (GMAT) can be seen from the basic formula for the kinetic energy of a single body, which is:
K.E. = ½mu²,
where m is the mass of the body and u is its speed.
However, here we are dealing with many small bodies (i.e. molecules) and so this formula needs to be modified slightly to take account of that. The modified formula is:
K = ½MU²,
where K is the average kinetic energy of the molecules, M is the average molecular mass and U is the average molecular speed.
It follows from this last formula that M and U are basic driving variables for the global mean near-surface atmospheric temperature (GMAT). I think this implies that any variations in the value of the GMAT must be caused by corresponding variations either in the value of M, or in the value of U, or in the values of both.
However, there are further component variables involved in the determination of M and U, of course. The value of M is simply the total mass of the atmosphere divided by the total number of molecules within it and that quantity is invariant with respect to variations in temperature and all other atmospheric conditions so long as the size and relative chemical composition of its atmosphere remain constant. So on any given planet with such a constant atmosphere, any variation in its GMAT must be caused by a corresponding variation in the value of U, which implies a corresponding variation in energy-input to the bottom of the atmosphere. I can envisage that this may be caused by a corresponding variation in absorbed insolation or perhaps a variation in the strength of its atmospheric greenhouse effect. Obviously though, the question of which cause is the correct one would have to be determined by observation and empirical measurement in each individual case.
“their proclaimed “discovery” only applies to near-surface temperatures. And as far as I have been able to understand, Stephen Wilde’s and Robert Holmes’s theories do likewise.”
.
Complete nonsense.
In my last paper I included Venus, Venus at 1atm, Earth, Earth’s South Pole, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan.
I specifically included Earth’s South Pole to overcome any objections about average near-surface temperatures; this applies to all areas of all atmospheres which are over 10kPa in pressure.
A thought experiment is also included to use as a test for the existence of the so-called greenhouse effect. An anomalous change in density or pressure would confirm the existence of a GHE, no anomalous change would invalidate the GHE.
Cassio January 13, 2019 at 5:13 pm
Thank you for your replies.
However they are most unsatisfactory when dealing in general with the Near Surface Atmospheric Temperature.
The first major problem is that fact that you talk about “a second source of enrgy, so I assume that your are saying that CO2 molecules are a source of Energy.
Second you state “However, the basic principle of the greenhouse effect relates explicitly to the actual surface-radiation and does not involve the specific thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be refuted by any argument from atmospheric thermodynamics.”
Which makes absolutely no sense to me whatever as it totally contradicts your premise that the greenhouse effect is involved.
Third you also state that “I am still waiting for someone to show me how the theoretical concept of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally – or even superficially – wrong and that whatever the alternative theorists’ reasons for rejecting it might be, I’ve never seen them properly expounded or explained.”
All I can say is that you haven’t looked, or you have an opinion that they cannot shake.
Moving on to my question of “Drivers” we have.
Fourth you talk bout using the “Average speed” of the molecules in the Atmosphere.
How then is the Atmosphere so much hotter near the surface?
You would have to use the Average Speed in single layers for that to make sense.
Fifth you state that you consider the drivers to be Mass & Speed, neither of which is a “Driver”, Mass is just mass and speed is the outcome of an energy input, ie a driver.
You then go on to say that “Insolation” is the cause of “U” which makes it the driver and I think we can all agree on that.