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]).
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.
@ur momisugly 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?
@ur momisugly 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.