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]).
Not all energy comes from the sun. “Conceptually, in the absence of an atmosphere, sunlight will heat the surface and the temperature will rise until the rate of emitted infrared radiation from the surface to outer space equals the rate of absorbed solar energy. (To be accurate, one needs to take into account the fact the planet is rotating and spherical, the rate of heat conduction into the sub-surface, and you also need to know the planet’s albedo (solar reflectivity) and infrared emissivity).” Why do scientist always leave out heat from the core of the earth? Wouldn’t there still be some heat being emitted by the earth even without the sun? We also emit energy from the stored solar energy from long ago. Isn’t that what fossil fuels are suppose to be. Why do we ignore all the heat we produce? Is the emitted infrared really equal to the energy we get from the sun? Should you change that to almost equal? Pressure obviously plays some roll because Death Valley is obviously much warmer than than Mount Whitney even though they get nearly the same amount of sunlight. Obviously, there is a greenhouse effect because on a humid day we don’t get as hot during the day or as cold at night regardless of the pressure. Whether the greenhouse effect is caused by back radiation or just the fact that water vapor holds more heat than air is beyond casual observation. Leave water vapor out of your extra warmth of the earth and add in the heat from the core as well as the heat all the life on earth is generating by activity and stored energy use. Then tell me how much heat is held in by pressure, CO2 back radiation, etc. It seems to me that more CO2 equals more life and more life equals more heat generated. If we reduce CO2 the amount of life will go down and the temperature will go down. A dead earth would be cooler regardless of pressure. I am not a scientist. You people make my head spin. I just don’t understand why so many basic sources of heat on earth are always left out of the global warming discussion. I do believe CO2 does cause some warming on a cold day in hell or Antarctica. The satellites in space taking pictures of earth make it clear that most of the infrared leaving earth is not stopped by CO2. Obviously the detectors used are not made for 15 microns as there is not much to see at -80C on earth and that wavelength would be blocked by CO2 anyway.
As Willis has explained above, the thermal power flux from the interior of the earth is less than 0.1 W/m2, so does not significantly affect the surface tempature levels when the solar power flux is thousands of times greater.
(This is not true of the gas giant planets, which still have significant power flux from the interior.)
Why are terrestrial heat sources ignored?
Because they are trivial relative to the Sun, which supplies about 240 watts/m^2
Heat from out of the Earth (from radioactivity and residual heat) is about 0.1 watt/m^2.
Volcanic heat is also tiny.
Burning fossil fuel releases small amounts of stored energy. Increased plant growth stores some. But these are also small, <1 watt/m^2.
“IR thermometer to demonstrate that the cold atmosphere can actually cause a warmer surface to become warmer still”
Gawd , if only that worked in my cold house. I have a kitchen with an aga always on, my bedroom is above. If I keep the door shut in my bedroom it gets warmer from the kitchen below. Unfortunately my kitchen does not get any warmer.
Just an observation!
Richard, imagine a planet with no atmosphere. The radiation at the surface goes straight out to space. No radiation comes from space.
Now, interpose a GHG atmosphere. Some of the outgoing radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. And some of that is radiated back to the surface
This leaves the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere, because it slows the rate at which the surface cools.
So yes, when you replace the infinite heat sink of outer space with a cold atmosphere, the surface ends up warmer.
w.
IR emitted from the surface, absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth is an energy loop that has little effect on greenhouse warming.
Warming occurs by slowing IR emission to space. The major factor is how cold is the atmosphere from where that space emission occurs? The surface is much warmer than the upper atmosphere.
“IR emitted from the surface, absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth is an energy loop that has little effect on greenhouse warming. Warming occurs by slowing IR emission to space.”
One describes the other. You cannot “slow” radiation. The surface has no idea neither does it care what is directly above it. It emits according to its temperature and emissivity. What can happen is when some of that energy comes back. Since it will be at the same EV level (wavelength) it ought to be accepted as readily as it was emitted.
Since the re-emission is in all directions, only some of the radiation returns to surface, we might suppose half of it. Since the average path length of a photon is about 10 meters at STP (I don’t remember the source and it doesn’t matter for this discussion), you can model the atmosphere as a series of layers, like an onion, with each layer sending half of what it gets back down. Needless to say this is quite a computation since the second layer sends down half of what it got, which is half of what was radiated, but of its half that it sends down which is 1/4 of the surface radiation, that only gets halfway to the surface when it is absorbed and re-emitted AGAIN such that 1/8th reaches the surface and 1/8 goes right back up to the second layer.
But most of that doesn’t actually happen since at STP, mechanical collisions deplete the energy of the excited CO2 molecule usually, but not always, before it gets a chance to de-excite and radiate. Consequently, convection not only of the surface but of air heated by the excited molecules becomes the dominant transport of energy within certain wavelengths.
Other wavelengths exist that are transparent to CO2 but absorbed and re-emitted by water and water vapor. One such is the wavelength used by remote reading infrared thermometers. They see right through CO2’s absorption band and instead see water. That’s why you can read deep space as extremely cold with one of these thermometers but the underside of a cloud is considerably warmer than deep space.
Does the cold reach in? No, cold is not a force. What happens is the lens of the thermometer is pointing at a heat sink; nothing comes back! Consequently the sensor radiates its own heat out through the lens into deep space, nothing comes back, and it gets as cold as the indicator says it is. Amazing, no? Point a parabolic reflector at the night sky in a desert and at the focus it will get VERY cold as if you could focus cold instead of heat; but what really is happening is creating a heat-free zone by allowing heat to escape to the sink and not return.
At Top of Atmosphere the molecules are far enough apart that they can radiate into space heat energy before a collision happens that transfers the energy to a non-radiating atom or molecule (but another collusion could happen eventually transferring the heat to methane or CO2 or ozone that can then radiate it).
@M-2
Considering “slowing radiation emission” as slowing the RATE of emission, Nothing you say above negates what I wrote.
The 15u band is relatively clear of absorptions by CO2. Most (far wings of the 15u band are exceptions) of those 15u absorptions and emissions in the lo-mid atmosphere simply move energy around. It is not lost from Earth. 16u emissions from high atmosphere have a slower rate than from the surface because the upper atmosphere is colder. A slower loss rate at 15u slightly warms. It could not be simpler, so don’t try to make it so.
A simpler but more complex process works for H2O absorption, because H2O abundance is so variable over space and time.
except my kitchen- oh and the desert – 100 degrees to freezing in a couple of hrs- some GHG atmos.
Many ways of looking at the problem.
“JERUSALEM – When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.
After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
The lesson?
“A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said”
I know the next day why the desert goes from freezing to 100 degrees , quickly, and it is not a GHG atmos!!
Correct.
It is nothing to do with GHGs.
But everything to do with meteorology.
You could try researching that fact.
Imagine an “atmosphere” composed of rock salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halite. Rock salt was used in Robert Wood’s experiment on back radiation because it has very low absorption of IR, but let’s say for our purposes that this is special rock salt and has zero absorption of IR. Let’s say this is one km thick and contacts the surface; there’s no other “atmosphere.”
Some of the radiation from the sun is absorbed by the rock salt, because it conducts with the surface. In fact, we can imagine that the rock salt serves as a significant store of energy.
This leaves the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere, because it slows the rate at which the surface cools.
No laws have been violated.
This is no different than having an atmosphere that absorbs energy from the surface.
Don132
Indeed-
“Sand has a low heat transfer coefficient of 0.06 watts per square meter degree Celsius. This means it can retain heat for very long periods of time and explains why the sand on the beach of a hot country remains warm hours after sunset – or desert!!
… and this rock salt is transparent to solar energy.
Don132
The best thing is to come up with some other description than greenhouse as the earths atmos is nothing like a greenhouse . This is a misrepresentation of awful dimensions.
richard
The mass induced phenomenon is just like a greenhouse.
Convection is inhibited below descending air just like a greenhouse roof prevents convection.
Transparency below descending air increases because clouds dissipate which represents the transparency of the glass.
It is the radiative theory that is nothing like a greenhouse. The proponents just hijacked a pre -existing term
A nasty term and we know the intention like acid seas! a greenhouse has one purpose – to increase temps. Our atmosphere cools as well as warms.
As I mentioned below it should be regulator gas.
“The mass induced phenomenon is just like a greenhouse”
Not in deserts- so wrong straight away.
Especially in deserts.
They are situated under high pressure cells with descending air which inhibits convection and has maximum transparency just like greenhouse glass.
and at night- from freezing to zero- so wrong straight away.
sorry, 100 degrees.
Only at the radiatively cooled surface which creates a temperature inversion. Above the inversion the air remains warmer.
You aren’t here to disrupt the flow of discussion are you ?
You aren’t here to disrupt the flow of discussion are you ?
how disgusting of you and you can see by my comments i am trying to break free of lazy thinking and terminology.
Easy, Richard. You can object to Stephen without calling him “disgusting.” That’s a very slippery slope.
“Easy, Richard. You can object to Stephen without calling him “disgusting.” That’s a very slippery slope”
I agree and regretted it instantly and wish to take it back – so apologies to Stephen.
I hope that Stephen can bring himself to re- address his comment that I am here to disrupt.
I have posted here for years without disruption but feel the need to comment on lazy term terminology like acidity of the seas.
No problem, I’ve had worse over the years.
Dear Don,
I have made an apology and hope it goes through.
Thanks so much Richard!
No need for people to get upset. It’s just paradigms.
Don132
I also wish to apologise to our host Mr Watts.
richard writes “the earths atmos is nothing like a greenhouse”
I believe the Earth and a greenhouse have much in common. For instance, both admit short wavelength visible light with very little attenuation; but long wavelength infrared is absorbed (and re-emitted) by the glass of a greenhouse, or by some atmospheric components opaque to those same wavelengths. The result of this is that the path to escape of heat into space is obstructed.
“by the glass of a greenhouse”
oh you have been fooled by an experiment- see al gore- that this website has condemned.
“oh you have been fooled by an experiment”
Maybe; but at least I conduct experiments and make decisions thereby.
For instance, I have double-pane (double-glazed) windows. It is very cold outside, as low as -20 C. When I aim a remote reading IR thermometer through the window, it reads about +20 (room temperature). It does not “see” the snow outside, it sees the glass temperature which has an emissivity near 1.
Going outside, the IR thermometer cannot “see” the heat inside the house; it can only see the temperature of the glass. At IR wavelengths, glass is opaque, black in other words; it absorbs, it does not reflect or transmit. But what absorbs also radiates. So the glass re-radiates at the same rate that it absorbs. However, absorption will take place only on the side facing a radiation source, but it emits from both surfaces. This has the effect of imposing a “resistance” to heat flow, allowing heat to accumulate inside a glass enclosure provided that a heat source exists that can heat what is inside (shortwave visible energy that passes through the glass).
These are simple physical experiments pretty much anyone can perform at low cost and which settles certain arguments once and for all.
There are similarities and differences between atmospheric GHG warming and greenhouse warming. As you say, glass resists IR passage. Thus, a greenhouse admits solar short-wave radiation into the greenhouse. There it is converted to long-wave IR and cannot easily escape through the glass. Atmospheric GHG heating is somewhat similar in that the GHG absorb IR from the surface so they cannot rapidly escape. This occurs multiple times until escape occurs from the colder upper atmosphere at a lower emission rate.
A greenhouse also warms by preventing warmer air inside to rise into the atmosphere and cool. Warm surface air in the atmosphere is permitted to rise.
Use of term greenhouse for GHG atmospheric warming may be clumsy, but what would be a better familiar term?
Greenhouse was an emotive term to fool the witless as seen in the seas becoming acidic rather than less base.
To be fair and to meet you in the middle, Willia, you can continue to use the term Greenhouse gas as long as you compare the term to a greenhouse with a sprinkler system and all windows and doors open otherwise you are being very misleading
Richard, the “greenhouse effect” was very poorly named … but so are lots of other things. At this point there’s not a damn thing that either you or I can do about it, because it has become a “term of art”. A term of art is some word or phrase that has an unusual, and generally not literal, meaning in some field of life.
For example, “set” is a term of art in mathematics. It does NOT mean what it means in common parlance. “Security interest” is a legal term that does NOT mean someone is interested in security.
Complaining that a term of art doesn’t mean what it literally says is meaningless—that’s the nature of the beast.
Nor is there any alternative term for “greenhouse effect” … so there is no “middle where we can meet.
My best to you,
w.
Just carefully distinguish between the radiative greenhouse effect and the mass induced greenhouse effect
and when you use the term “greenhouse” understand what it is you are re-enforcing !!!
a greenhouse has one use and is built to maximise this- our earth’s atmos is not.
you are pandering to fools.
Dear Willis,
“Richard, the “greenhouse effect” was very poorly named ”
On that we can agree but surely all you do is continue the meme?
I say be bold and come up with new ideas and thoughts.
Let our Israeli scientist be your inspiration.
“Nor is there any alternative term for “greenhouse effect”
very weak thinking –
See Ken Caldeira,( below) and how recent the term “acidity of the seas” was coined when we know the correct scientific term is becoming less base – if it is actually happening!
Are you happy with this term?
This website is very particular about correct science and terminology and you pander to an emotive term of greenhouse gas.
I expect better and I am not a scientist.
This might help you understand my concern for inserting the sprinkler system.
“RAILONCH Micro Irrigation Watering Kit, Automatic Garden Plant …
https://www.amazon.co.uk/…Irrigation…Greenhouse-Sprinkler/dp/B07D71BP2W
RAILONCH Micro Irrigation Watering Kit, Automatic Garden Plant Greenhouse Water Cooling System Sprinkler Nozzle
I suggest calling them regulator gasses as they cool and warm depending on the circumstances.
richard January 3, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Sorry, but that ship has sailed. See my reply above.
A google search for “GHG OR ‘greenhous gas'” brings up 39 MILLION results … you’re not going to change that.
w.
I agree but you could at least try and change the perception or you just cement a badly used term- some scientists actually try!! be bold and not weak-
Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman is someone to try and emulate.
Dear Willis,
In 2003, the term acidity of the seas was coined by Ken Caldeira. A horrible term – but so recent!
Why don’t you try something new rather than greenhouse gas. Times are changing and the climate change meme is under attack , new thinking could speed this up-
Be brave!!
In 2003, the term acidity of the seas was coined by Ken Caldeira. A horrible term – but so recent!
Really, can you provide a citation for that?
It’s well known-
“discusses the work of climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Michael Wickett, who coined the term “ocean acidification.” Caldeira is a climate modeller.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/20/the-darkening-sea
He goes onto say-
“This is often termed “ocean acidification” because it describes the
process of decreasing pH. Current projections of ocean acidification
suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the
term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in
reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the
oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)”
So he used alarmist words when he knew the correct term was “less basic” Hence my beef with the term “Greenhouse gas” which just signifies a hothouse – it’s a very lazy term.
@richard & Phil
A phase diagram of various carbon chemical phases in the ocean as a function of pH reveals a lot.
At the average ocean pH of 8.1 (it varies by 0.x) the basic OH- concentration (moles/kg) is about log -5, and the acid H+ concentration is much lower. On the pH scale they anti-correlate and are even in concentration at pH=7. If the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes to 10,000 (factor of 25 higher than now), the CO2 dissolved in the ocean would likely rise a similar amount. That would change ocean CO2 from about log -5 now to about log -3.7. At that CO2 concentration, the ocean pH would decrease to slightly below 7, where H+ exceeds OH- and the ocean would be very slightly acidic.
pH + pOH=14
so if pH is 8.1 pOH is 5.9
No he didn’t he used the correct term “acidification’ which is what happens when you add acid to a solution, i.e. add CO2. He clearly pointed out that the ocean wasn’t expected to become acidic. He used the correct scientific term which is frequently misunderstood by non chemists, chemists aren’t going to stop using the correct term.
you obviously missed this bit-
“when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in
reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the
oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic”
the term acidic is wrong – that is why the terminology is ” less base”
you obviously missed this bit-
“when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming less basic, but not acidic”
Not at all, he made a reasonable attempt to point out to the non-chemists that the use of the term ‘acidification’ did not mean that the end point was an acidic ocean. Unfortunately some, like you, can’t understand plain english.
Phil,
As the seas will never become Acidic, and he knew that, he used the term to get results and push an agenda in the same way as greenhouse gas is used.
Really nasty, abuse of language and causing a lot of damage.
Hence coining the phrase in 2003- gawd !
An obvious problem with using “less basic” in describing the oceans is that I suspect a great many people are not going to see “basic” as opposed to “acidic” but will see “basic” as opposed to “complex”. Less basic thus means more complex. Perhaps you should choose a different word.
In 2019 I want to see new original thinking regarding the term “greenhouse gas” otherwise the website is stuck in the mud.
N & Z have suggested Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which I would be content with.
Dear Stephen,
I am not sure I am happy with that. I have expressed I am not a scientist so my comments are not persuasive but that term still conjures up that everything is about warming and plays into the global warming meme and we can see the damage done by Ken Caldiera with acidity of the seas.
“Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach..”
.
For what? He did not prove anything.
These pages are a joke, and most here are even more closed-minded than the alarmists are.
What on earth would a psychiatrist know about the greenhouse effect anyway?
It’s ridiculous to even listen to his opinion.
This total tripe is apparently what has impressed Anthony Watts so much;
.
“Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up…But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone. ”
.
And yet somehow the surface CAN be warmed a lot by the so-called GHE, where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and somehow this represents no problems at all for thermodynamics!!! The emission height can change for the GHE, yet it can’t for the gravitationally-induced thermal enhancement/gradient!
It is just too funny.
And another straw man being thrown up here by Anthony relates to pressure;
Not sure exactly what NZ are saying, but my papers do not claim that warming comes from increasing pressure alone, it is more complicated than that.
Nevertheless, in all atmospheres >10kPa, the best way to see temperature is that it is a result of a constant battle between pressure and density, thus;
T=P/(R x ρ/M)
Sure, molar mass plays a part, but generally this is minimal because it usually occurs on a much longer time-scale.
If a special class of gases (the so-called GHG) did exist, they would have to anomalously affect pressure, density or both to do what they are claimed to do in our troposphere. – AND they would have to violate one of the core principles of the gas laws; i.e. that there are no ‘special’ gases.
We can relax, because there are no anomalous effects on density or pressure from any gas, and the gas laws are safe.
What is NOT safe is any longevity to the claim of a so-called “greenhouse effect” from supposed “greenhouse gases”.
“And yet somehow the surface CAN be warmed a lot by the so-called GHE, where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and somehow this represents no problems at all for thermodynamics!!! …..
It is just too funny.”
What’s funny is your total lack of physics understanding.
“where energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained”
It’s not.
What is absorbed is indeed what is emitted (bar the odd watt or 2 imbalance due the GHE).
What you and many fail to comprehend is that the effect is not on an instantaneous time-line.
There is a delay in the system.
An analogy…..
A dammed lake in a river.
The flow in equals the flow out yet an excess builds up before the dam.
Why?
Because the water flow is held back a while before it can pass the dam.
It is a temporary blockage caused by the time taken for the flow in to be able to go out.
That is the case with GHGs.
@ur momisugly A.B.
Your analogy is poor. The delay time in GHW is relatively small.
At the rate water runs into a lake, it may take months or years for the lake to fill.
At STP, molecular collisions occur on times of nanoseconds. Given bond relaxation times in CO2, IR emission times are a few microseconds. Hundreds of IR absorptions and emissions can occur with almost no delay. By then the energy has moved up to the IR emission height and is lost to space.
GHG warming occurs mainly because that IR emission from high atmosphere by CO2 or H2O occurs from a colder atmosphere than the surface, and the emission rate is slowed, so atmosphere must warm to regain balance.
But what is not considered is that the increase in CO2 means that the emission rate increases to space.
This has been established by satellite measurements.
So how much is gained from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere compared to how much is lost to space.
In the lower atmosphere it is obvious that moisture & cloud cover inhibits cooling at night, but also inhibits warming in the day, but remove the moisture & clouds and there is not much inhibition from CO2.
You only have to compare Tropics to Deserts to see that H2O controls the process and by comparison CO2 does very little indeed.
About 10% of the ~33 deg-C GHW is from CO2. Much of that occurs from broadening of the 15u emission, which because of lower absorption probabilities in the 15u band wings, occurs from lower, warmer atmosphere. Look at a satellite spectrum from space to see.
It is also the case with the mass induced effect but radiative imbalances destroy hydrostatic equilibrium whilst the mass induced effect creates it.
Go figure.
Robert..
Given that CO2 can both lose and gain energy due to N2 etc collisions..
Wouldn’t there be more collisions per second with increased pressure and temperature? (higher velocities, shorter travel distance)
Wouldn’t there be more infrared emissions per second coming from those CO2 molecules?
Wouldn’t this higher level of emissions from the ATE be seen as “back radiation”?
Dr Happer answers my question:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Glad to see a link to accurate answers given by someone who truly understands molecular physics and spectroscopy (Dr. William Happer of Princeton). Even gladder to see that he is a key science advisor to the President, who needs to be assured that the mainstream media and the IPCC are mostly wrong about climate change.
EdB, I didn’t realise that you are Dave Barton.
What a Gentleman Scholar Will Happer is to take the time to answer your questions.
His response, which shows that in effect the CAGW brigade have , to put it in the vernacular, got it arse about face.
The actual “Greenhouse” gases that store the energy and delay cooling are N2 & O2 and the Radiant gases are the ones that do the cooling.
This is compounded by the “free path length of an IR photon in the atmosphere which is very short somewhere around 20-40 Metres, so from where CO2 is dominant at it is around 10Km from the surface. Those photons will have a very hard time travelling that distance.
Funny.. no I am not Dave, but he did us all a favor of getting some direct answers from Dr Happer. I watched that video of Dr Happers lecture a few times and noted the quick extinguishing time. As a result I was puzzling over why more CO2 would have any measurable effect at all, given the near instant thermalization. If anything, more CO2 would make the atmosphere more uniform in temperature, and as such there should be less violent behavior, like tornadoes.
I did not relate it to ATE until this discussion.
Not entirely correct though, Will appears to misunderstand what is meant by radiative lifetime
IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH’S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.
The radiative lifetime is the ‘mean time between collisions’ not the length of time that the molecule emits for, as Will appears to think. Also only one photon will be emitted not a long chain of them as described by Will. The excitation energy removed by collisions is not removed by a single collision, rather it’s mostly chipped away a small amount at a time
But a billion collisions per photon ?
Can’t be many photons.
Depends on the altitude, near the surface the energy is mostly thermalized, up in the stratosphere it’s mostly radiated.
Yes.
“the best way to see temperature is that it is a result of a constant battle between pressure and density,”
Even better is to see it as a battle between conduction and radiation.
The lapse rate slope represents the changing balance between conduction and radiation as one descends through the mass of an atmosphere. It is a constant battle between the two processes and convection up and down along the lapse rate slope acts as a mediator with conduction between molecules above and below the slope then being the mechanism that resolves imbalances.
Convective adjustments operating via conduction within the atmosphere neutralise the effects of GHGs as fast as they arise so as to obey the Gas Laws and retain hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere as a whole.
Stephen,
Yes; you gave the long answer, I gave the short one.
I note above a link to comments made by Will Happer as follows:
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
which is new to me and pretty astonishing because it means that the 15mu energy allegedly blocked by a CO2 molecule is virtually certain to pass its warmth to adjoining non radiative molecules via conduction before it can contribute anything extra to the downward radiative flux.
That makes it far more likely that the mass induced greenhouse effect is the correct version and runs a coach and horses through the idea that DWIR from CO2 is even measurable by IR thermometers or anything else.
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
Hardly new, I’ve been posting that on here for years, it’s elementary Phys Chem and I certainly didn’t need Will to tell me about it.
It was the billion times figure that surprised me.
What are alarmists playing at ?
Stephen, I wrote:
Willis Eschenbach January 4, 2019 at 12:22 am
You replied:
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 1:44 am
Say what? We’re talking about YOUR thought experiment, not mine.
And your claim that “conduction/convection up and down” stops the 288K surface from radiating? That makes no sense. Remember, energy is neither created nor destroyed. So all that conduction/convection can do is move energy from point A to point B.
Best regards,
w.
It is you have a problem in that if the surface radiates to space at the same rate as it comes in from space and radiates to space strictly in accordance with its temperature then there is no energy left for conduction so an atmosphere could not form in the first place.
How do you deal with that ? I really want to know.
The obvious solution is that some of the radiation that would otherwise have gone to space is diverted into conduction in order for the atmosphere to form.
Since the same unit of surface energy cannot be in two places at once you cannot argue that a surface at 288k radiates to space at 288k when there is a convecting atmosphere between surface and space which requires 33k of conducted energy to maintain it.
Your proposition makes no sense.
And conduction / convection is indeed simply moving energy from point A to point B but you have to account for the creation of that energy store in the first place and you cannot.
The fact is that placing conducting mass between a radiating surface and space compromises radiation efficiency from the surface so that the amount reaching space is less than that emitted by the surface.
Conduction itself allows absorption of energy by non radiating molecules with no need for those molecules to have radiative capability themselves.
AGW theory ignores the ability of conduction to divert energy from the radiative flux (as do you).
The accuracy of the US Standard Atmosphere and the calculations of N & Z amongst others support my proposition.
I was curious to know how much the atmosphere weighed. One answer on ‘ask the experts’ gave a figure of around 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons, or 6 quadrillion tons.
Since the earth contributes nothing to this that the sun doesn’t bring into the equation this amounts to an enormous amount of solar energy required to keep that lot up in the air. This energy is locked into the earth/atmosphere system. How many days worth of solar irradiance does that amount to? The mind boggles.
Back of the envelope calculations:
Atmospheric mass = 5.148E+18 kg
Specific heat air = 1 kilojoule / kg / degreeC
To heat atmosphere by 1°C =5.148E+21 joules
Solar input after albedo reflections = 240 W/m2
Surface area of planet 5.11E+14 m2
Seconds per day = 86,400
Total solar input per day = solar input time area times secondsperday = 1.06 E+22
Taken together, this means that the sun’s heat would warm the atmosphere about 2°C per day.
w.
Seconds per day = 31,556,592
24 hours*60 minutes*60 seconds = 86400 seconds per day….
Grrr … seconds per day indeed. I used the right number in my computation, it is two degrees per day, but I wrote the wrong number in my comment. I’ve fixed my comment, many thanks.
This is the beauty of writing for the web … mistakes have a very short half-life here at WUWT.
Good to hear from you, as always,
w.
mistakes have a very short half-life here at WUWT.
Except when being peddled by quacks and pseudo ‘scientists’; then they live forever: to wit, this very post.
Luckily we know who they are.
Willis often says that when people resort to insults you know you have won 🙂
Stephen, in your case those are not insults. They are dead-on descriptions.
w.
No doubt the people you were dealing with when you felt insulted would say the same.
Your position is that if anyone insults you then they’ve lost the argument but if you insult someone it is dead accurate.
The word’ hypocrisy comes to mind’.
But let’s stop there shall we. I never get assertive until someone else gets nasty first.
I never get assertive until someone else gets nasty first.
In any case, that is still not a useful [or civil] way to conduct an argument.
That you cannot rise above that sadly tells a lot about you.
Well I have risen above it better than you and Willis. No abuse in my comments remotely similar to what you and Willis come out with. A couple of barbed remarks maybe but not the sort of thing you two generate.
In a good manners contest between the three of us I’d come out ahead.
I suggest we stop there and if you aren’t rude I’ll have no temptation to respond in kind.
I suggest we stop there
Good riddance [if you can keep that promise].
And saying that someone spouts nonsense is not an insult to a person, but a deserved debunking of his ideas [totally different thing].
I recall saying you spouted abuse but not that you spouted nonsense as far as I can remember.
You couldn’t keep your promise [as predicted].
Amnesia for the purpose of argument [or swipe] must be an occupational disease for lawyers.
Thank you Robert Holmes (and of course SW below him) for sensible understanding of how gases actually work, hence the Gas Laws. They are different from solids, even liquid solids, which is why Steel greenhouses are not appropriate any more than equation-fitting expressing non-existent conditions. Robert said there ‘are no special gases, which is what Maxwell pointed out. He wrote Thermodynamic Law down and developed experiments to demonstate them. Read pp330-350 of his ‘Theory of Heat’ for starters.
The ‘Standard Atmosphere’ depends on all this, and knows it.
Gases near STP can be pictured as c.2angstrom cubed molecules bouncing around in c.12angstrom cubed spaces. Contacting each other about a billion times a second (Brittanica 1977 Vol 7 p917), transfering energy (thermalising by KE). The Gas Laws work in non-critical pressure situations because statistically , size-differences are too small relatively to matter.
N and Z have aready used the normal route to demonstrate the ‘Atmospheric Thermal Effect’ or ATE like many others out in the real world where the gas laws rule and radiant emissions are merely an Effect of KE vibrations through a magnetic field.
The sun runs on nuclear powered KE at multimillions of degrees but has to radiate through space to us from its surface of c.7000K. It was however lit up by ATE as described by N and Z and others. The surface we see corresponds to our tropopause I surmise. A better discussion might involve how these things work in the engineering sense, and also their dimensionless approach in the paper under critical review here…… Regards all from Brett In NZ without the ‘and’. You know, the Hicks who just launched 19 cubesats for Nasa. You can be sure we can do graphs, statistics, and equations here. But we prefer to do better experiments instead. I note both Voyagers our Electrician heading JPL sent out have now pretty well left the solar system. Sometimes I dont blame them. Anywhere but California, hey?
The sun runs on nuclear powered KE at multimillions of degrees but has to radiate through space to us from its surface
It actually does not run on KE. It runs on nuclear fusion of H to He in the core. The energy from that reaction moves by radiation most of the way to the surface.
@ur momisugly L.S.
High kinetic energy, produced by high temperature, is required for atomic collisions to have sufficient energy for nuclear reactions to occur.
So both kinetic energy and nuclear reactions are reason Sun emits energy.
High kinetic energy, produced by high temperature, is required for atomic collisions to have sufficient energy for nuclear reactions to occur.
The high kinetic energy is an effect of the nuclear reactions that are producing gamma rays that heat the solar matter to maintain a high temperature. Once ignited some 5 billion years ago, the nuclear fusion is self-sustaining as long as there is enough fuel left.
@ur momisugly L.S.
Only partially so. A star collapses under its gravitation and heats until nuclear reactions can begin. Stars on the main sequence (most stars) only very slightly increase temperature as they burn H fuel. Only when that fuel is gone do they substantially heat in their interiors to enable a new reaction. Some cannot sustain sufficient internal temperature, rapidly under gravity, then explode.
Only partially so. A star collapses under its gravitation and heats until nuclear reactions can begin.
It heats by shrinking [converting potential energy to heat]. Once fusion begins, the star stops shrinking [no more heating due to gravity] and all its energy is now generated by fusion [with the exception of the minuscule amount (one in a thousand) generated at the surface by magnetic reconnection – powering the tiny sunspots cycle variation of TSI].
Don’t disagree. My original point was that both kinetic and nuclear energy changes are required to produce a star and enable it to irradiate. Without either one — no radiation.
My original point was that both kinetic and nuclear energy changes are required to produce a star and enable it to irradiate. Without either one — no radiation.
What you are missing is that the two mechanisms do not work at the same time: first the kinetic energy [while the sun is shrinking, and no fusion] and then fusion [when the sun stopped shrinking, and no gravity-generated heat].
@ur momisugly B.K.
Energy contained within a gas molecule as translational (kinetic) and quantized molecular bond energy are distinct, although they can be transferred from one to another. Don’t belittle the substantial role of radiation energy in the universe, as opposed to kinetic energy.
Let me now introduce the simplest possible explanation for a mass induced surface temperature enhancement.
Conduction diverts surface energy from radiation to convection which introduces a degree of opacity to the radiative flow from the surface.
That is it.
Opacity to a radiative flux need not be limited to radiatively active materials after all.
Non radiative matter can introduce such opacity simply by conduction creating convection.
It doesn’t even matter whether conduction and convection draw their energy directly from the surface or from the radiative flux after it has left the surface.
Convective activity creates opacity to a radiative flux, period.
The more mass is involved in that activity the higher the surface temperature rises.
One might reasonably ask why opacity from convection is to be preferred as against opacity from back radiation as the cause of a greenhouse effect.
To answer that we need only consider hydrostatic equilibrium.
Simply put, convective activity is a product of balancing the upward pressure gradient force against the downward force of gravity. Thus convection creates hydrostatic equilibrium.
If one then introduces a radiative imbalance such as is proposed by AGW theory then that imbalance, left uncorrected, will destroy hydrostatic equilbrium and lead to the loss of the atmosphere.
It has long been acknowledged that convective adjustments stabilise or neutralise radiative imbalances within any atmosphere at hydrostatic equilibrium.
Thus , since atmospheres subsist indefinitely,the radiative characteristics of GHGs do not have any effect on surface temperature.
Case closed.
Stephen,
I doubt that those who are true believers in the radiative paradigm as essential for raising the earth’s temp above 255K will take the energy to understand what you’ve said.
Let me rephrase. Along the way let me note that although Willis and I had a major discussion during our last encounter over the atmospheric mass effect, this time around Willis hasn’t responded to a single thing I’ve posted. I’ll let readers make of that what they will.
An atmosphere can absorb energy by virtue of its mass and its density. Its density is determined largely by pressure. In the greenhouse gas paradigm, the atmosphere can’t absorb or hold energy; this is the implicit assumption. The assumption must be present because only by assuming this can they then introduce a mechanism to account for surface insulation, and this is by GHGs.
And we are talking about surface insulation: this is what GHGs supposedly do. They insulate by increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules in the lower atmosphere; since gas temperature is by definition the amount of kinetic energy per unit volume, then its supposed that the atmosphere is heated by GHG internal energy imparted to other molecules in accordance with the equipartition theorem. But, as soon as any volume of air heats, it rises: it’s immediately countered by a convective response. Warmer air rises. So the next response is to say that it’s all about emissions height, because we have this thing called pressure that doesn’t do much of anything at all at, and doesn’t allow for atmospheric density and for the atmosphere to hold heat, but what it DOES do as it stands by in the wings is allow us to count down from the emissions height, using the lapse rate, to get the surface temperature. Pressure is largely dismissed and unrealized.
So two implicit assumptions in the greenhouse theory for earth’s temperature are: one, the atmosphere can’t hold heat by itself without the aid of GHGs; and two, that pressure is largely derivative (for theoretical purposes) and doesn’t do anything in the atmosphere, with the exception of it’s function in the lapse rate.
In any case we note that in Willis hypothetical planet heated constantly on all sides, the atmosphere must necessarily absorb heat. There’s no way around this. Furthermore, since there is no night side and no cold poles on this evenly-lit planet, there’s no way for the atmosphere to cool. Furthermore, as pressure increases, the atmosphere must heat up. Why? Because pressure is heating the atmosphere exactly as happens when one pumps up a bicycle tire. No, I’m kidding, and by now hopefully everyone can see what really happens: since gas temperature is by definition not the translational kinetic energy of one or two molecules but instead the collective translational energy of all the molecules within a given volume, then the more molecules you have with the exact same translational kinetic energy in a volume of gas, then the higher is the temperature of that gas, by definition. No way around it. Denser gases can hold more molecules. Repeat: denser gases can hold more molecules. That’s the essence of the NZ/Wilde/Holmes theory.
It is impossible to deny that an atmosphere can hold energy all by itself, without any aid of GHGs, yet this is exactly what those who hold the greenhouse theory implicitly deny. Where does the extra energy come from? There is no extra energy. The “secret” is that the energy of the suns in Willis’ planet affect the mass of the atmosphere as well.
Consider a rock salt atmosphere one km thick, as explained before. Rock salt (halite) has very low IR absorption and is a mineral that can be clear. For our purposes we’ll say it’s clear, completely transparent to incoming solar radiation, and completely transparent to IR. Does the rock salt heat up in contact with the planet’s surface? Yes, it does; we know it does. Does it insulate the planet? Yes, it must. Is any energy magically created by the rock salt? No. Does the planet emit more than it receives? No. The rock salt functions exactly the same as the theoretical greenhouse gas atmosphere. We KNOW that it’s possible for the rock salt to warm, and we also know that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for conservation of energy to be violated: exactly as happens in the greenhouse theory.
Don132
@ur momisugly Don132
Without GHG, the atmosphere CAN hold energy and can gain it from surface conduction. What it cannot do in absence of GHG is absorb or emit IR radiation.
GHG produce warming because they emit IR to space from higher altitudes where it is colder than the surface. That basic concept is simple.
Weather satellites like CERES measure both incoming solar and outgoing IR radiation across a broad spectrum. From the relative rate of outgoing IR they can determine the temperature of the emission and thus the approximate height. IR directly from the surface (no IR absorption) comes from the surface. IR from GHG come from greater altitudes AND have much lower fluxes.
Incoming solar is only very slightly smaller than outgoing IR. The difference is partly global warming and partly things like energy storage in increasing plant growth.
Pressure changes and air movement in the atmosphere are the result of energy variations within the atmosphere and have essentially no role in GHG warming.
donb: “Pressure changes and air movement in the atmosphere are the result of energy variations within the atmosphere and have essentially no role in GHG warming.”
But the overall pressure of an atmosphere largely determines the density of the atmosphere and therefore how much heat it can hold: pressure matters on a global scale before we even talk about atmospheric circulation.
I was wrong in saying that an implicit assumption in the greenhouse theory is that the atmosphere can’t hold any energy. But this is assumed in Willis’ model.
Don132
Conduction diverts surface energy from radiation to convection
By initially causing the surface to cool, this causes an imbalance at the surface since the loss of energy to space can only be by radiation from the surface. This means that the surface will warm up until it is in equilibrium at which point the atmosphere at the surface will be at the same temperature as the surface, which will be at the same temperature as it was in the absence of an atmosphere. In the case of a non-uniform surface there will be a change in T (but not T^4) due to Holder’s inequality considerations. The hotspots will be cooler and the cold spots warmer due to atmospheric heat transfer but the total heat loss from the surface to space will be the same as it was in the absence of the atmosphere.
That is case closed.
“By initially causing the surface to cool,”
That is only step i) in my description.
You are determined not to follow through to the conclusion aren’t you ?
Due to convection the air at the surface is constantly replenished and then rises itself to make room for yet more so no there is no equilibrium locally. You have to consider the entire circulating system, as I have done.
Okay Donb: The point is that radiation, the weaker force here; is bypassed by the instant uplift of conducted / thermalised gas expansion (it is instantaneous). The ground is normally warmer than the air (check grass min/max Ts), and ‘backradiation cannot change that because of vector physics in all normal circumstances barring possibly inversions which are rare by comparison. Study of Hans Geiger’s ‘The air above the Ground’ is very instructive. Water Vapour uplift is of course even more powerful, being only half the density of air. Radiation dominates in space and above c.6km in our particular atmosphere. Gases have too many degrees of freedom in the broad sense to be Batteries. Seawater, another matter phase, another story……. and I was refering to atmospheres, not Universes.
Physics is not a buttonned-down thing but is dynamic and opportunistic. Brett
Just came across this thread and have been trying to get through it all. A long way to go yet. I hate to comment without having read everything, but I’ve still got things to do today. Here’s what I think I’m seeing: Dr. Roy starts out by pointing out that N&Z were proved wrong by Willis because ALL of the incoming heat to a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere would be re-radiated back to space. N&Z claim (if I understand) that some of that heat would actually be transferred to the non-GHG atmosphere via conduction. The surface temperature would then rise until some sort of equilibrium is achieved, then outgoing radiation would again be the same as incoming. The main difference being a higher average temperature at the surface.
For Willis and Dr. Roy to be right, NO heat can be transferred to the atmosphere meaning there can be NO conduction. And, in fact, Willis does say that. To be fair, I didn’t follow his links so maybe he qualifies that somehow, but his responses to Stephen Wilde seem to indicate that he believes GHG are the only thing capable of interfering with planetary surface heat radiating to space. No heat is transferred to non-GH gases.
As far as I know, conduction does take place whether a material is capable of IR absorption or not. And if that’s true, then Dr. Spencer’s and Willis’s objection isn’t valid. An easy test would be to set an evacuated metal cylinder on top of a large burner and measure the temperature at which the temperature stabilizes, i.e. when thermal equilibrium is achieved. Next, fill the cylinder with nitrogen (a non-GH gas) to, say, 5000 psi and repeat the experiment. If Dr. Roy and Willis are right, NO heat will be conducted by the nitrogen and everything will be exactly the same as before. To be sure, stand really close.
I’ll stand back a few hundred feet myself. Because if I’m right, the nitrogen actually WILL conduct heat. I’m guessing it will take a lot longer for the temperature to rise since there is a lot more matter being heated. I’m also pretty sure the cylinder will explode long before you find out what the equilibrium temperature turns out to be.
Hi Dan!
1. Like you, I have skipped a lot of the comments to date, but I think I can comment on your thoughtful views. In the thought experiments, one must distinguish between an initial cold planet & non-greenhouse gas atmosphere and a steady state one at energy balance.
2. Start with a planet with no atmosphere at energy balance (so incoming Solar energy that is not reflected outward is balanced by infrared (IR) radiation outward). The incoming Solar flux (solar insolation) is about 1366 W/m^2 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation ), but is applied to a circular cross-section of the Earth. If the Earth were a perfect black body rotating rapidly, this would all be absorbed and then re-radiated over the entire surface of the sphere, which is 4 times the cross-sectional area. So at energy balance, the outgoing flux would be 1366/4 = 341.5 W/m^2.
3. When this 341.5 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be (using emissivity 1 for a perfect black body) 278.6 K (5.4 Celsius).
4. Since the mean surface temperature of the Earth is 15 Celsius (288.2 K), 9.6 degrees warmer than a perfect black body that absorbs all incoming Solar radiation (and then at energy balance re-emits the same flux at IR frequencies), there must be a mechanism for throttling the outgoing flux. That is what greenhouse gases do, the main one being water vapour and then CO2.
5. You have argued that conduction to a non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) can also throttle the outgoing flux, explaining a warmer surface for the Earth, if I have understood you correctly.
6. Yes, if a cold non-radiating atmosphere is suddenly added to that perfect black body Earth, heat will be conducted and convected to the gases until they warm up. But as the layer in contact with the hard deck surface will, during the warming up phase, be colder than the surface at 278.6 K, it cannot increase the temperature of the 278.6 K surface (for this would mean net heat flow from cold to hot, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
7. Higher layers of the non-radiating atmosphere will at energy balance be colder than the first layer in contact with the 278.6 K surface, in accord with the dry adiabatic lapse rate which can be simply derived from dU/dh = -dH/dh = – (dH/dT)(dT/dh) where gravitational potential energy of a gas molecule of mass m at altitude h is U=mgh , and enthalpy (heat content) H = Cp.T , where heat capacity at constant pressure Cp = 7k/2 per molecule for linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ). So they too cannot warm up the 278.6 K surface.
8. This entire argument holds true whatever the pressure at the Earth’s surface as long as Ideal Gas behaviour is followed. Doubling the pressure by doubling the total number of molecules in the atmosphere means that there will eventually be twice as much enthalpy (heat content) H stored in the atmosphere, so it may take longer to reach energy balance, but the 278.6 K surface temperature would remain unchanged.
9. The outgoing flux at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA) is around 240 W/m^2, as measured by satellites looking down on the Earth. This would correspond to a Planck black body (emissivity = 1) at 255 K. Hansen then said that the greenhouse effect is 288 – 255 = 33 degrees, and this has been widely repeated in the literature.
10. However, this assumes that the albedo of the Earth remains the same, with or without greenhouse gases. This is unrealistic, since water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, and clouds dramatically affect the albedo.
11. If we consider the Earth totally devoid of clouds, which means no water vapour, no oceans, no lakes or rivers, no life forms including vegetation, etc., then the albedo would be similar to that of the Moon, at 0.136 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon ).
12. Since 13.6% of the incoming Solar radiation would be reflected back to space, the flux absorbed would be reduced by that amount, and at energy balance the flux emitted as IR would be reduced to 1366 W/m^2 (1 – 0.136)/4 = 295.1 W/m^2. This would correspond to a black body of emissivity 0.98 (an experimental value for the Earth’s surface) at 269.9 K. Therefore the greenhouse effect, still real, would be approximately 288.2 – 269.9 = 18.3 degrees. And this cannot be explained by pressure of non-greenhouse gases. Hope this helps.
“as the layer in contact with the hard deck surface will, during the warming up phase, be colder than the surface at 278.6 K, it cannot increase the temperature of the 278.6 K surface (for this would mean net heat flow from cold to hot, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics).”
I think that is the Dragon Slayer argument but it is wrong because there is nothing to stop an atmosphere colder than the surface from insulating and warming the surface as a result of convective overturning converting KE to PE and back again
The non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) means no emission of IR, but by Kirchhoff’s law, that also means no absorption of IR either. So how can a cold atmosphere “insulate” and warm the surface whose IR emission would stream unthrottled through the transparent atmosphere to outer space?
Your constant invocation of “convective overturning” resembles a perpetual motion machine. Yes, during the warming up phase, heat is transported up by convection to upper layers of the atmosphere where the temperature is initially cooler due to the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
But textbook diagrams showing circular cross-section convection cells transporting warm air downward are wrong. Anyone who has occupied the lower bunk in a winter log cabin heated by a small wood-burning stove knows that the heat transported by convection produces a plume upward from the stove top to form a hot, less dense layer at the ceiling which spreads laterally, roasting the occupant of the upper bunk, but leaving the lower bunk mostly in the cold.
Yes, strong upward convection transports heat up near the Equator, and the less dense air can be driven at altitude toward the Poles by the centrifuge effect (more dense stuff moves toward the Equator, but less dense stuff moves away, just as less dense helium balloons move upward against gravity when the surrounding air is more dense). Then, as this dry air cools via radiation from greenhouse gases to outer space, it contracts, and when it falls back to Earth, it warms up and creates warm dry deserts that form a band at mid-latitudes.
But without greenhouse gases that radiate IR to outer space, this cycle would be broken. Heat loss by conduction and convection to outer space is a no go.
Roger,
The lack of meteorology knowledge shows up in your suggestion that diagrams of convection cells show warm air being transported downward.
They show cold air sinking downward but becoming warmer as it descends due to adiabatic compression but throughout the descent it remains colder and denser than the adjoining rising columns of air because the surroundings warm at the same rate as does the descending air so that the density differential is maintained.
You are by no means alone in that error. Adiabatic processes are counter intuitive and need careful thought.
Also I have found the flaw in your description.
You cannot just add a cold atmosphere to a rocky planet and expect it to be in gaseous form unless you have already injected enough energy into it yourself to keep it suspended off the surface as a gas.
You must add the gas as an initial solid at the temperature of space whereupon it will at first sit as a solid on the cold side and on the warm side it will draw energy from the irradiated surface until it has enough energy to stay off the surface. Over time, due to rotation or circulation the cold side will also draw energy from the surface to become a gas.
It will never become a gas unless it absorbs energy that would otherwise have been radiated to space.
In other words the need for the material introduced by you to divert energy from outgoing IR before becoming a gas effectively adds an element of opacity to outgoing IR
Your entire description misses the need to supply energy from the surface to get the gases to hydrostatic equilibrium in the first place.
You can’t just add it yourself ab inito and then declare that some magic force holds the mass of the gases off the surface which is what you have inadvertently done.
Hot air balloons go up , cool and come down.
Hot air balloons do not descend-in the “greenhouse gas ” world of of madness the hot air ballon would descend and heat the surrounding area.
I use hot air balloons others use Greenhouses. I think the hot air balloon is more realistic.
Roger Taguchi:
“The non-radiating atmosphere (e.g. of N2) means no emission of IR, but by Kirchhoff’s law, that also means no absorption of IR either. So how can a cold atmosphere “insulate” and warm the surface whose IR emission would stream unthrottled through the transparent atmosphere to outer space?”
Because the atmosphere absorbs kinetic energy through conduction from the surface. The denser it is, the more energy it absorbs. A pure N2 atmosphere has no way of radiating that kinetic energy away.
Don132
Roger, this is probably the clearest and most concise explanation I’ve seen. We’re in the middle of putting a birthday party together, so I’m not able to respond as well as I would like. But I did want to thank you for your reply.
Your no. 8 is obviously where people start to disagree and it’s certainly where I start having a hard time wrapping my head around what is going on. One could almost argue that because an atmosphere is transferring heat around a planet, the dark side must necessarily be hotter than it would be in a vacuum and thus, per S-B, radiating even more energy out to space, proving that the presence of an atmosphere actually COOLS a planet.
Of course, you aren’t arguing that, but then why not? I’m not trying to be snarky, just wanting to understand.
If no. 8 applies then it must also apply to GHGs aas well.
Good to see that a newcomer gets the point.
If a surface always radiates to space at a rate commensurate with the surface temperature as predicted by S-B then there is no way to get any energy into the gas molecules to get an atmosphere into position in the first place.
The truth is that gas molecules can only be suspended off the surface by taking energy away from outgoing IR and once off the surface they start to create opacity to the outgoing IR flux whether they have radiative capacity or not.
I said above that it is case closed, and it is.
Thanks, Roger Taguchi, for your eloquent and understandable response and explanation. I was only addressing the actual topic of this article and Stephen here explains my problem with Dr. Roy’s “gotcha” argument.
I have immense respect for both Dr. Spencer and Willis, but I am not yet convinced their objection (this specific one) is correct.
As far as N&Z goes, it makes intuitive sense to me that heat conducted into even an N2 atmosphere would not be evenly distributed, due to gravity causing a higher pressure at the surface that decreases with altitude. Then, as explained by the ideal gas laws, the temperature would be higher where the pressure is higher, resulting in a higher surface temperature than would exist in a vacuum.
Intuition isn’t science, of course, but I’ve yet to see an explanation (that I can understand) of why the paragraph above can’t be true.
LS, I wrote ‘runs on nuclear powered KE” so Strawman to you, expect better. Please describe the latest on energy’s path to the solar surface. I see convective plasma there, but it must be a very interesting path that far, and very long too…. Brett
Please describe the latest on energy’s path to the solar surface. I see convective plasma there
From the core to about 0.7 solar radius the energy travels as gamma ray and X-ray radiation. No convection. The interior is stably stratified [like the Earth’s Stratosphere]. As the radiation nears the 0.7 R point, the opacity increases [because the temperature falls, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%27_opacity_law ] and becomes so large that convection becomes the more efficient mode of energy transport until the ‘surface’ where the material becomes thin enough that convection can no longer transport the energy. Then the energy streams out from the photosphere as radiation again. The matter there is not really a plasma; it is no more conductive than ordinary seawater [only one in ten thousand atoms is ionized]. note that it is the opacity that causes convection, not, as St. Wilder believes, the other way around.
All of this is well-understood in quantitative detail. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_zone#Stability_against_convection
“note that it is the opacity that causes convection, not, as St. Wilder believes, the other way around.”
Nor relevant to the current discussion since no hard surface illuminated from outside.
Nor relevant to the current discussion since no hard surface illuminated from outside
Very relevant, as it shows that convection does not add or subtract anything from the energy transport.
Your [wrong] statement was that convection causes opacity. It is the other way around [Schwarzschild’s criterion for convection is generally valid]. If you have difficulty understanding this, try to explain why you think convection causes opacity.
With a hard surface illuminated from outside (quite unlike a star) you have to get energy from the surface to a potential gas molecule to get it lifted off the surface.
That requires energy that would otherwise have radiated to space. Once multiple molecules have lifted off then they will inevitably convect amongst themselves and retain their energy store indefinitely by recycling it continually between KE and PE. In the process they provide an insulating function that raises surface temperature above S-B
So we have a scenario whereby there is a difference between IR at the surface and IR exiting to space.
That constitutes atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR.
It is true that once aloft the convecting gases do not add or subtract anything from the background energy transport but you have ignored the energy required for initial lift off which did temporarily subtract from outgoing IR energy transport and it will never be added back unless the gas molecules fall back to the surface.
In a star, without a hard surface illuminated by external energy, you do not require that initial slug of energy deducted from a background in/out energy exchange to cause lift off from the hard surface so you have raised a straw man and at your level of competence you must have been aware of that.
It is hard to get something as pseudo scientific as this. Pure nonsense, no understanding of the physics. Dunning-Kruger effect of high caliber. If you want to learn about convection, study this:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/kud/teaching/4.Convection.pdf
I have looked at your link but cannot see where it describes the energy required to raise gas molecules off a hard surface.
Please could you direct me to it?
Thanks.
cannot see where it describes the energy required to raise gas molecules off a hard surface.
Because that is totally irrelevant. Any gas will expand to fill any volume [confined by gravity]. It will convect or not depending on the temperature gradient. The ‘hard surface’ is also irrelevant, as the gas will expand where it is regardless. Your silly ideas are ‘not even wrong’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
A planet in the cold of space has a hard, cold surface. It is the materials on that surface that become gases when warmed up.
When they become gases they absorb energy in order to lift up against gravity.
Your objection is wholly misplaced because recognition of the surface / atmosphere boundary is essential to the mass induced greenhouse effect within planetary atmospheres.
None of your comments relate to that scenario.
All you do is spout abuse.
A planet in the cold of space has a hard, cold surface. It is the materials on that surface that become gases when warmed up.
Nonsense. E.g. the oxygen in our atmosphere was never frozen solid to be warmed up [by what? the sun?].
Your notions are just ridiculous and you deserve whatever you get.
Ok, You want to shift the argument.
I accept that planets do not generally start with a hard surface and that the atmospheric gases have never been solids. I used a conceptual model to simplify things because the outcome is just the same.
The atmospheric gases acquired their energy directly from the sun assisted by a bit of gravitational attraction in the early days and so were already in place as gases when the surface congealed from the area of gas and debris to form the planet.
All that represents is a shortcut which avoided the need for conduction from the surface.
The gases still require energy to hold them off the surface just as if the scenario had started with a cold hard surface. That energy will be released if the planet cools such that they fall to the ground and become solids.
If you then warm up the planet again it will be exactly as I have described to you and your stuff about stars does not cover it.
The reason I have to go into such detailed verbal gymnastics is the ever increasing complexity of the desperate attempts to deny the very simple concept of a discrete , closed, adiabatic energy loop between surface and atmosphere using non radiative energy transfer processes.
very simple concept of a discrete , closed, adiabatic energy loop between surface and atmosphere using non radiative energy transfer processes.
What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.
The Sun is a good example of this. The energy flux just under the convection zone is the same as that escaping from the ‘surface’ [= top of convection zone]. The energy transport in the convection zone is non-radiative and closed. No energy is added or subtracted. Same with the Earth’s troposphere.
Case closed.
My description of the process answers your first sentence in detail. Have you read it ?
The sun is different because it supplies its own energy from inception whereas energy has to be supplied to an atmosphere around a planet and that energy in the atmosphere is then subjected to a throughput of energy in and out of the planet / atmosphere system. Apples and Pears come to mind.
The sun is different
No, the solar convection zone receives its energy from below and radiates it away at the top. The transparent terrestrial atmosphere is also heated from below and radiates it away at the top. No difference. The convection in both cases does not ‘create’ any more energy. What goes out is just what comes in.
No hard surface irradiated from outside. Not applicable.
No hard surface
Hard surface not required. This is your pseudo scientific notion that is ‘not even wrong’.
A molecule 100 meter off the ground does not know about any ‘hard surface’.
You are not gaining any ground here. Time to fold and go away.
A molecule 100 metres off a hard surface requires a specific amount of energy to lift it to that height.
In a sun the amount of energy required needs to be measured from the centre of gravity which is a central point.
With energy coming from inside the sun there is no complete dependence on energy coming from outside so as to flow in and out of the system.
The scenarios are not comparable.
The description I have provided is logically and physically sound.
The description I have provided is logically and physically sound
No, it is complete nonsense.
Explain why a ‘hard surface’ is necessary.
It is preferable rather than necessary. Makes the energy transfers far simpler and creates far greater stability.
Inside a star it is a mash up of all sorts of physical and chemical phenomena the effects of which are very hard to disentangle, hence your job.
It is also very much simpler to have an single outside energy source coming in and passing through the system on its way back out.
The convecting layers in your star have radiation above and below which makes things far more complex.
Due to the simplicity of a planet with a hard surface it is easier to construct a narrative showing the sequence of events, which you have never addressed apart from being abusive.
I only engaged with you as a result of your throw away sarcasm in a reply to someone else.
The convecting layers in your star have radiation above and below which makes things far more complex.
No, it is actually very simple: radiation comes up from below and escapes from the top. The energy going in is just the same as the energy going out. Convection does nothing additionally.
construct a narrative showing the sequence of events, which you have never addressed
Well, I have demonstrated that it is nonsense, and a ‘narrative’ is not science. Numbers, equations, etc are.
‘What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.’
Are you saying that accelerating a body of gas in one direction and then accelerating it back in the opposite direction doesn’t affect temperature? Where does the energy come from to do all that work? No entropy effect?
Where does the energy come from to do all that work?
You tell me. Inquiring mind wants to know.
Bernard Lodge: Where does the energy come from to do all that work?
Leif: ‘You tell me. Inquiring mind wants to know.’
I don’t know. My guess is that temperature would be lower as I can’t see any other source of energy to drive the air flows. I was hoping you would know!
🙂
Leif, you stated;
“What rises, cools. What sinks, warms. Overall effect: none.”
.
The overall effect is not “none”!
The overall effect is to create a thermal gradient, and a surface temperature enhancement.
And that is perfectly in accord with observations.
So; where is the “greenhouse effect” then?
So; where is the “greenhouse effect” then?
The GHE has nothing to do with the convection.
The ‘GHE’ has nothing to do with anything; it does not exist.
The ‘GHE’ has nothing to do with anything; it does not exist.
Of course it exists. Please don’t try to play dumb.
Going back to your initial point:
Opacity is a resistance to transmission. I note that you say opacity precedes convection.
and that there is no convection without opacity.
Given that convection from a hard surface will occur within a non radiative atmosphere how do you explain that ?
Also, convection is required to raise an atmosphere off the ground (where one starts from a cold surface) so you need to have that convection before there can be any opacity.
Maybe what you say holds true within a star but not for a planet with an atmosphere ?
Also, convection is required to raise an atmosphere off the ground (where one starts from a cold surface) so you need to have that convection before there can be any opacity.
You have no idea. The temperature at the surface during the day is much higher than above it. Conduction heats the first few centimeters of the air. The heated air expands and rises [=convection]. Convection requires a steep temperature gradient which you get by the air getting thinner with altitude in connection with the poor conductivity of air. So, it is opacity that controls convection, not the other way around, as you mistakenly assert. It is hard to discuss your nonsense in any meaningful way.
Well there you are referring to conductive opacity I assume. But you still need convection to put that atmosphere in place initially so in that sense convection comes first.
Convection is not something that suddenly starts within a previously non convecting atmosphere. Convection is intimately involved in getting the atmosphere up from a cold surface in the first place.
Even for an atmosphere that was never congealed on the surface the convection was occurring amongst individual molecules from when the very first molecules clumped together so even there convection preceded opacity.
But we were considering radiative opacity because less IR gets out to space than was available at the surface even in the case of a non radiative atmosphere. Again, you need the atmosphere in place before opacity and atmospheres convect from the very first moment.
So, the opacity before convection meme is just a convenient construct. In all cases convection is there from the very beginning so really one should say that they occur simultaneously.
Just semantics really and no excuse for all your rude comments.
Convection is intimately involved in getting the atmosphere up from a cold surface in the first place.
The surface is warmer than the atmosphere during the day, which is what gets convection going.
Opacity is a radiative term. Can’t redefine that the mean whatever you like.
Convection is not something that suddenly starts within a previously non convecting atmosphere
Yes it is. Just need to get the temperature to get along. Ever heard about temperature inversions and how that stops the convection, until the inversion disperses and convection starts up again? I guess not.
Inversions are localised, short term and shallow. Convection continues above them.
No convection, no atmosphere.
But still, I’ve learned more about the sun. Would be interested in seeing the vertical temperature profile through one of those solar convecting regions.
No convection, no atmosphere.
Oh, yes. Heavy stars have deep, extensive non-convecting atmospheres.
Would be interested in seeing the vertical temperature profile through one of those solar convecting regions.
You obviously did not take the trouble to look at the link I gave you:
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4020/lecture01_solar_interior.pdf
Slide #3.
So, no need to continue to embarrass yourself.
Case closed.
The stupendous densities and consequent resistance to convection within Heavy Stars are not under discussion here.
Looking at The Convective Zone Temperature Gradient (Dalsgaard Model 1) no fig number shown I see an interesting thermal gradient through the Convective Zone. Could you explain it please ?
It looks like it is indeed cooler at the top of the convective zone and the bottom is warmer than the layer below which is what I suggested would be the case if my contentions are correct.
You have now said this:
“The energy transport is not by emission [radiation], but by bodily moving the matter. And as much goes up as goes down.”
Whilst the matter moves up and down it is radiating as per S-B is it not ?
Meanwhile the circulation up and down is converting KE to PE in the rising columns and PE to KE in the descending columns and then that KE released at the base circulates to the bottom of the next rising column just as I say happens in the atmosphere.
The outcome appears to be as I predicted and mirrors our atmosphere unless you have a better explanation.
I said the case is closed, but will give one more chance to learn.
The stupendous densities and consequent resistance to convection within Heavy Stars are not under discussion here.
The densities are very low. Lower than air in most of the layers of the star.
Looking at The Convective Zone Temperature Gradient (Dalsgaard Model 1) no fig number shown I see an interesting thermal gradient through the Convective Zone. Could you explain it please ?
The temperature depends on the density which varies a lot. Look at the left part of the figure.
It looks like it is indeed cooler at the top of the convective zone and the bottom is warmer than the layer below which is what I suggested would be the case if my contentions are correct.
The temperature is not important [as it simply depends on the rapidly dwindling density]. what matters is the amount of energy transported and that is constant throughout the zone. the same at the bottom as at the top.
Meanwhile the circulation up and down is converting KE to PE in the rising columns and PE to KE in the descending columns and then that KE released at the base circulates to the bottom of the next rising column just as I say happens in the atmosphere.
No, that is not what happens. there is no KE ‘released’ at the bottom. Here is a good explanation of the process:
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/STARS/Lecture08.pdf
The outcome appears to be as I predicted and mirrors our atmosphere unless you have a better explanation.
I have given you a good deal of explanation which totally debunked your ideas.
In fact, as people who follow this would appreciate, I have specifically shown that every assertion you have ever made here is false.
Well that link has a lot about adiabatic processes, convective circulations and density variations so it by no means contradicts what I said.
Furthermore the chart shows cooler at the top of the convecting layer and hotter at the base with the base being hotter than the radiative layer below exactly as one would expect from the usual KE PE exchange in atmospheric overturning.
I see that specific conditions must apply for convection to arise in a star but convection in planetary atmospheres is ubiquitous. Hence I was right to tell you that the two scenarios were not compatible.
Your objections to my adiabatic loop concept in a normal planetary atmosphere do not appear to be valid.
Furthermore the chart shows cooler at the top of the convecting layer and hotter at the base with the base being hotter than the radiative layer below
‘hotter’ is the wrong metric as that is just a reflection of the density. The important point is that the energy flowing in at the bottom is equal to the energy flowing out at the top. There is no KE/PE conversion involved.
Your objections to my adiabatic loop concept in a normal planetary atmosphere do not appear to be valid
Vacuous hand waving. If you think you have a point for point argument/objections that you have not already spouted, you should come out with those. Right now, you appear to have nothing [following your use of ‘appear’]
Energy in to the Earth and out from the Earth are the same but there is a large ongoing PE KE exchange within the atmosphere. So it must be within convecting regions in the sun.
The adiabatic loop stores energy which shows up as a higher temperature at the base than would otherwise be expected. Just like that chart of the temperature gradient across the sun’s convecting layer.
The adiabatic loop stores energy which shows up as a higher temperature at the base than would otherwise be expected.
The energy flow at the base is just that that comes from the core, nothing more and nothing less. The exact same energy after a few weeks flow out of the surface. The convection does nothing except simply transporting the energy from point A to point B. If you can’t grok that, you just demonstrate that this whole 1000+ comment discussion was totally lost on you.
From A to B with a delay as PE and KE circulate up and down within the moving mass which increases the temperature at the base of the convecting layer above what would be expected from a steady outward flow as shown by the thermal irregularity in the chart in your own link.
Nothing like a fuel delivery.
The link says the mechanical processes are the source of the heat NOT that the mechanical processes are just passing it along from the core.
I think we should stop there since we will never agree and the real subject of this thread is Earth’s atmosphere.
The link says the mechanical processes are the source of the heat NOT that the mechanical processes are just passing it along from the core.
You do not read the link correctly. What it says is that heating of the Corona [to millions of degrees] is done by crashing waves and magnetic reconnection. That increases the solar irradiance by 1/1000 of what is simply brought up from the core by convection. That you get fooled [deliberately?] by this just shows your willingness to misunderstand things for the purpose of argument. A scientific no-no.
The energy for the crashing waves and so forth is provided by the thermal enhancement of the energy flow caused by the mechanical processes referred to.
The important point is that the convecting regions are hotter than the layers beneath due to purely mechanical non radiative processes which is exactly what the text says so whatever you say next in order to get the last word can be safely ignored.
I also predicted that that would be the case even before I saw the temperature profile.
The important point is that the convecting regions are hotter than the layers beneath due to purely mechanical non radiative processes
Except that they are not:
I also predicted that that would be the case even before I saw the temperature profile.
Since the ‘prediction’ is wrong, so is your ‘theory’.
It is this capacity for lying outright in face of evidence that has kept this thread going for 1100+ comments.
Shame on you.
Wrong chart.
There is another one which appears to show what I said and I invited you to let me know if I had misinterpreted it. Maybe we are at cross purposes in which case your allegations are wrong.
Kindly apologise for your hate speech.
Wrong chart. There is another one which appears to show what I said
No, there isn’t, because that is not what the situation actually is.
The point remains that the actual temperatures are not ‘as you said’ and that therefore your ‘theory’ is wrong.
hate speech
Deception must always be countered in a deliberated and passionless manner. When the policeman tells the accused that the evidence shows that the accused is lying, that is not ‘hate speech’. As a lawyer you ought to know that.
Just post the chart on page 8 and explain the difference.
Just post the chart on page 8 and explain the difference.
Please pay attention
Inversions are localised, short term and shallow. Convection continues above them.
Actually not. The stratosphere is global, long term, and extensive.
No convection, no atmosphere.
Not so. A star of 1.5 solar masses is radiative throughout, no convection whatsoever:
There is convection in the stratosphere known as the Brewer Dobson circulation. Probably also in the mesosphere but it has not yet been observed.
I’m considering planetary atmospheres above a rocky surface not great balls of gas which have their own special features that can dispense with convection.
There is convection in the stratosphere known as the Brewer Dobson circulation
As you point out, this is a circulation and not convection. The circulation is driven by atmospheric waves [see e.g. Holton, 1990].
Atmospheric waves have a convective component so you are hiding behind semantics and over fine distinctions.
Some would say that atmospheric waves are created by uneven convection in the troposphere
Atmospheric waves have a convective component so you are hiding behind semantics and over fine distinctions.
There is a very real physical difference. Produce a link that details how large that purported convective component is.
From Leif’s link:
“Convection is a familiar phenomenon in our everyday lives: for example,
our daily weather is caused by convection in the Earth’s atmosphere. The
surface of the Sun (Figure 8.2) is not smooth; instead we see bright granules
separated by darker intergranular lanes. We know from Doppler velocity
measurements that the motion of the bright regions is mostly outwards,
while in the dark intergranular regions the gas is moving downwards. The
motions and temperature inhomogeneities seen in the granulation pattern
are attributed to the hydrogen convection zone just below the solar photosphere. The bulk motions of the gas and associated magnetic fields are
thought to be the source of the mechanical energy flux that heats the solar
chromosphere and corona”
Convection is the source of the mechanical energy flux. Strange that, in light of Leif’s comments.
Convection is the source of the mechanical energy flux.
Convection is the source of all the energy we get from the sun in the sense that the energy generated in the core [the real source] 100,000 years ago is moved by convection [in a few weeks] the last part of its journey to the surface. Like a gas-delivery truck is the immediate source of the energy that runs my car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)
for the uninitiated
You said this:
“radiation comes up from below and escapes from the top. The energy going in is just the same as the energy going out. Convection does nothing additionally.”
I would expect the base of the convecting layer to be hotter than the top of the convecting layer and also hotter than the top of the layer immediately beneath it.
That would be a result of the time taken for overturning in the convecting layer slowing down the rate of emission upwards and heating the base of the convecting layer just as I say happens at the base of a convecting atmosphere.
Unless there is some other feature of stars that prevents it.
That would be a result of the time taken for overturning in the convecting layer slowing down the rate of emission upwards
Again, nonsense. The energy transport is not by emission [radiation], but by bodily moving the matter. And as much goes up as goes down.
2 Simple questions Mr Svalgaard.
What were the conditions of the mass before it became a Sun or Star and why did it become one?
What were the conditions of the mass before it became a Sun or Star and why did it become one?
It was an interstellar clouds [we observe many today] that contracted due to its gravity.
https://www.space.com/35526-solar-system-formation.html
I wrote ‘runs on nuclear powered KE” so Strawman to you,
Probably an ignorant [or deliberate] muddle. The Sun does not run on KE, nuclear powered or otherwise. The KE [assuming you mean Kinetic Energy] is an effect of the nuclear fusion. The fusion produces gamma rays that keep the sun hot.
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Not true in the slightest. Consider the surface of the earth. It loses energy in three ways—as sensible energy, as latent energy, and as radiative energy.
The fact that the surface is losing energy as sensible and latent energy does NOT mean it is not radiating to space exactly as S-B says. It absolutely is doing so, AS WELL AS losing energy by conduction.
What happens is that whatever energy is lost through conduction cools the surface, so per S-B it is radiating less. But there is nothing to stop it from both radiating per S-B and at the same time conducting—the earth does that continually.
w.
Ok.
The surface cools and less is radiated to space so for a while the planet does not radiate as much as is coming in.
That is step i) of my description.
Tell me what happens next.
On an airless body such as the moon the heat transfer equation for a location (on the equator for example) is as follows:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4
where Cs is the effective heat capacity of the surface, Ts is the surface temperature, Ri(t) is the time dependent insolation and -εσTs^4 is the radiational heat loss term.
At dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases. Ri(t) follows a cos curve, maximizing when the sun is at ‘noon’, the temperature follows with a slight lag and on the moon at dusk is ~30K above the dawn temperature.
Add a IR transparent atmosphere and the system’s governed by the following equations:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4 – kh(Ts-Ta) (1)
CadTa/dt = kh(Ts-Ta) (2)
As before, at dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases, but not as fast as before because of the the additional conduction term. That conduction causes the air temperature, Ta, to increase as indicated by equation 2 with a lag maximizing slightly later than the surface at a slightly lower temperature. After dusk Ri(t) becomes zero and Ts cools due to radiation heat transfer as in the previous case, however the surface cools more slowly as Ta is higher than Ts. The air near the surface will also cool as indicated by equation 2. To accurately model the system you would need more equations for additional levels of the atmosphere, such as:
CadTa1/dt = kh(Ts-Ta1) – kh(Ta1-Ta2) (2)
CadTa2/dt = kh(Ta1-Ta2) (3)
Etc.
Despite Wilde’s assertion, there is no guarantee that convection will take place, it will only do so if the Rayleigh number exceeds 1000-2000.
See a discussion of the Rayleigh number here: https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/free-convection-and-rayleigh-number.html
Phil,
I’m aware of the Rayleigh constraints on the inception of convection which involve viscosity resisting upward movement and radiative leakage delaying the point at which the required density differentials are achieved.
However, in our atmosphere at least, viscosity and radiation leakage are not sufficient to cause any significant delay.
Even with a much greater viscosity and a lot more radiative leakage (such as on Venus) it doesn’t really matter since the density variations in the horizontal plane are way greater than that which is needed to get convection started.
So, you are technically correct but it adds nothing to this discussion.
Stephen Wilde January 4, 2019 at 11:44 pm
You sack of pig excrement, perhaps you feel free to toss around such scurrilous accusations because you or your friends are in the habit of setting out to “conceal the truth”. Or not. I don’t know, and I don’t care. Either way, making such an accusation is a despicable act.
I do not set out to conceal the truth, nor did I “load the dice”, and you are a slimy scumball to accuse me of doing those dishonorable things without a single scrap of evidence.
I set up my thought experiment to simplify the situation so that the issues would be clear. My thought experiment is a theoretically possible world. There is nothing concealed. The issues that it raises seem to be clear to everyone but you and a few others. But I NEVER set out to conceal the truth.
I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head and lose your vile accusations when you are discussing things with me. I am an honest and an honorable man. I do not cheat by loading dice. I do not conceal the truth. And I will not stand to be accused of being otherwise.
I was brought up under the “Captain’s Code” of “The Captain”, my great-grandfather. Part of his Code was the following:
Now, the Captain was born in 1848, a much rougher time … so despite my grandmother inculcating all of the Captain’s Code in us kid’s heads, and despite her treating lying as a mortal sin, I’ve never killed a man who called me a liar.
But as you might imagine, I think that people who accuse others of lying, concealing the truth, or loading the dice without firm, concrete evidence in hand are … well, undesirable, and not fit companions.
I’m willing to assume that the reason you are so free with your false accusations is that you had a morally deficient upbringing … but I think that we’re at the end of this conversation. Come back on another thread. You’re dead to me on this one.
Sadly,
w.
Then I accept that you did not do it deliberately in which case you are less than competent because a competent person would have selected just those two parameters to eliminate convection.
Which do you prefer ?
Besides,
Do you not recall first accusing me of fooling people and implying that those who saw my point were fools so where is the difference ?
I note above a link to comments made by Will Happer as follows:
“IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. ”
which is new to me and pretty astonishing because it means that the 15mu energy allegedly blocked by a CO2 molecule is virtually certain to pass its warmth to adjoining non radiative molecules via conduction before it can contribute anything extra to the downward radiative flux.
That makes it far more likely that the mass induced greenhouse effect is the correct version and runs a coach and horses through the idea that DWIR from CO2 is even measurable by IR thermometers or anything else.
Following the comment of Philip Mulholland above I’m placing this link here as well as in reply to his comment so that it does not get lost in the thread so quickly.
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/correcting-the-kiehl-trenberth-energy-budget/
Philip is absolutely right in spotting the Trenberth error that I analysed back in 2014.
Stephen,
This is shaping up to be another of those gigantic threads (currently at 1052 comments) that I suspect will soon be closed down. In the meantime, I will jump back in here. First, ignore my geothermal segue above it is an error and is not relevant to the discussion.
What I would like to focus on however is this issue of convective balance. It is indisputable that what goes up must come down, so mass balance in vertical atmospheric movement is a given. What is not correct is to state that energy transport is in balance. This latter point is true if (and only if) there is no radiative loss to space of energy from the top of the atmosphere. This issue here is potential temperature in the stratosphere and how it is formed and maintained. Is it due to thermal interception of high energy incoming radiation by ozone (Erl Happ’s hypothesis) or is it due to latent heat released by moist air lifted aloft by convection in thunderstorms in the troposphere?
My meteorological tutor at college favoured the latent heat explanation. His contention was that because of precipitation fall out of water back to the surface (either as rain, hail or snow), the removal of water from storm clouds meant that the lifted air could no longer descend at the wet adiabatic rate and could only descend at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Consequently, there is an asymmetry in vertical energy transport during the convection that produces precipitation. One of the most interesting results of modelling studies conducted by NASA of planetary atmospheres on rotating planets is that the latitudinal reach of the Hadley Cell is determined by a planet’s daily rotation speed. On slowly rotating Venus the Hadley cell reaches the poles.
We know that the Earth’s atmosphere is semi-transparent to outgoing thermal radiation, and we also know that a solid surface is the best thermal emitter of heat. We most clearly see this in the formation of ground frost and the creation of a surface inversion layer caused by direct radiative cooling of the surface to space. Looking again at the descending limb of the Hadley Cell the descending dry air is warmed adiabatically and is in effect a gigantic foehn wind that moves heat sourced from the ITCZ poleward via the top of the atmosphere.
As thermal loss to space from a gas is an inefficient process, it is the dynamically forced descent in the Hadley Cell that delivers heat back to the surface and which provides the warmed air at ground level that can be used to power the Ferrel Cell as part of the overall motion of air and energy from the equator to the poles.
For the purpose of energy balance I’m not sure that it matters which explanation causes the tropopause but I’ve always understood it to be ozone absorbing incoming solar radiation directly. I don’t think it is latent heat released by large convective clouds because they spread out at the tropopause and radiate upwards very strongly.
In any event the entire stratosphere has a warming gradient so convection effect could not filter high enough.
As regards the energy balance there is an asymmetry between the wet and dry lapse rates.
My understanding is that the cause of the wet rate is the fact that water vapour is lighter than air so it moves up the lapse rate slope faster than air.
That introduces a distortion to the lapse rate slope as per fig 5 for condensing greenhouse gases here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/neutralising-radiative-imbalances-within-convecting-atmospheres/
The extra warming from the dry rate offsets the extra cooling at the wet rate for a net zero effect at the surface when both rising and falling columns are taken together.
I’m not certain that was your question so please clarify if not.
Thanks Stephen.
I will study the link you provided
TTFN
Philip
Last time this discussion was closed prematurely. Suggest that it remain open longer than is typical, as there are over 1000 comments and I think this is where it gets interesting … but, unfortunately, where people may dig in to defend positions. Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
Don132
Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
Will never happen…
Still, it would be good to get to the bottom of some key disagreements.
“Will never happen…”
Some of us would like to see where the logic settles out.
Don132
I notice that Willis said this above:
“Regardless of the amount, you still have not identified the energy SOURCE supplying that 100+ W/m2 of energy continuously. ”
Now if one looks at that faulty Trenberth diagram we see that thermals and evapotranspiration come to102 W/m2
Since that energy is returned to the surface and not despatched to space it must be heating the surface.
Job done and case closed 🙂
Stephen,
Hasn’t that particular diagram been updated? I tried the same calculations on the new one and it didn’t work out as neat as it did on the one you did the corrections on.
Also Wllis mentioned earlier that the paper that started all this had some dodgy calls regarding how they got some planet – Mars? – to fit their curve. Given the discussion here have you any idea how this could be addressed?
Although the other paper they published on how to calculate the baseline blackbody emission using the moon as a reality check did make some sense to me having become more familiar with the issues in the course of this thread.
I’m not sure I trust the authors of the paper that much as scientists.
However that doesn’t necessarily reflect on your views.
Stephen Wilde said, “After a while, the entire illuminated side consists of less dense warm rising Nitrogen and the entire dark side consists of descending, denser and colder Nitrogen.”
The nitrogen is NOT going to flow to the dark side and descend. INSTEAD, One winds up with a temperature increase with height during the day, as the atmosphere near the ground is heated by ground conduction, gradually replaced with a NEGATIVE temperature gradient overnightt, with the atmosphere near the ground cooled by ground conduction, but as you get higher in the atmosphere there will be NO temperature change, NO atmospheric flow from day side to night side. That ground level warm dayside air is NOT going to move in to replace the denser, cool ground level nightside air.
So wrong that there is no point commenting further.
You’re evidently unaware of stable nighttime temperature inversions.
http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~lead/SkewT_Inversions.html
Agreed. Plus the amount of warming and cooling is controlled by water(vapor, clouds, ice), in parallel with IR cooling through the atmospheres IR transparent window at about 10 microns.
So what can be the net effect of CO2? As far as I can see, it reduces the turbulence of the atmosphere needed to balance the earths energy budget.
“So what can be the net effect of CO2? As far as I can see, it reduces the turbulence of the atmosphere needed to balance the earths energy budget.”
Yes, absolutely.
It is part of my wider narrative that GHGs, especially water vapour facilitate the return of energy back to the surface ready for radiation to space faster than would a non GHG atmosphere so that overall convective turbulence need be less vigorous.
The example I give is the dry, thin atmosphere of Mars which has no assistance from water vapour and so its convection needs to be so intense that it periodically kicks up planet wide dust storms when imbalances develop.
“Plus the amount of warming and cooling is controlled by water(vapor, clouds, ice), ”
ahhhhh- balm to my ears!!
“I suggest calling them regulator gasses as they cool and warm depending on the circumstances”
only a fool calls them greenhouse gasses signifying only an upwards movement in temps.
Robert Kernodle January 5, 2019 at 7:29 am
Seriously? You think that they “made a determined effort to establish a better estimate of Mars temp”, and purely by chance that ended up a) 30°C cooler than the generally accepted values and b) agreeing with their magic equation to the nearest tenth of a degree?
They have not explained what they did. They have justified what they did, and a poor justification it is.
Nothing “high-level” about it. Their equation is nothing but overfitting—they have half the number of tunable parameters as they have data points to match, and a free choice of equations. Classic overfitting. And when I said so in my post, I was rightly challenged—if you say it’s so simple, Willis, can you do it?
So I did it and got a result using fewer tunable parameters with only three-quarters of the RMS error of their equation. My equation is simpler than theirs, gets better results … and is just as bogus as theirs it, because in both cases it’s just overfitting.
It’s a meaningless curve fitting exercise, Robert. Period.
w.
There are over 1000 comments on the top post.
A lot of people are interested.
I’d say a good portion of us are still unconvinced of Willis’ argument.
Top post: “Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.
“In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.”
I think we’ve already been through this but it’s being ignored. Even if NZ are wrong, Willis’ argument is wrong. But we keep jumping around on different tangents and have a lot of arguments going on here and I don’t see this fundamental argument addressed.
The answer is that the bulk atmosphere in the absence of GHGs is “warmed” to the planet’s surface (especially so in Willis’ planet where the atmosphere can’t cool.) What this means, and why I put “warmed” in scare quotes, is that the gases within the atmosphere acquire the same kinetic energy as the surface molecules (but we really don’t know what the “temperature” of the atmosphere would be without knowing pressure, since density determines gas temperature, all else equal.) Since atmospheric gases are denser nearer the surface, more heat in the form of translational kinetic energy is concentrated at the surface. Does this warm the surface? No. Even if the atmosphere is warmed above the surface temperature of the planet (because the pressure is sufficient to warm the atmosphere above that temperature by way of concentrating the amount of kinetic energy per unit volume) the surface does not warm further. Even IF there are many more molecules per unit volume with the same kinetic energy as the surface (i.e., a “hot” gas), when they conduct with the surface there’s no change in the kinetic energy of the molecules at the surface: I believe this is what Joe Born was saying. But the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface! If the gases at the surface don’t radiate then they’re not radiating the surface, they are only conducting, and the kinetic energy of molecules of surface and atmosphere is the same, no matter how dense the atmosphere is. But how hot the atmosphere is, all else equal, depends on how dense the atmosphere is.
Assuming sufficient atmospheric pressure, at some point midway up the atmosphere the temperature will be the same as the surface; at the top of the atmosphere the temperature will be cooler than the surface (even if all the molecules have the same kinetic energy as the surface!) and at the surface the atmosphere will be warmer than the surface. The individual gas molecules will have the same kinetic energy as the surface.
Does the surface now radiate more than it receives? Why would it? Answer that simple question and show me how this is wrong, because I don’t get it. If you double the pressure of the atmosphere then this doesn’t change the kinetic energy of the molecules, even as it changes the temperature of the gas. If you add GHGs then the surface can be heated by radiation, but not so without GHGs. Despite this, the atmosphere can be warmer than the surface in a non-GHG atmosphere such as Willis’ imaginary planet.
I change my thinking more as I understand more and try to understand objections. But so far I’m not seeing any convincing arguments against the basic logic of NZ.
Don132
Stephen, if you agree with what I’ve said then copy some in response, as so far as I can tell Willis isn’t even reading my comments, but he is yours. Thanks.
Don132
Don132:
I improvidently put two thoughts together in that last comment, so in retrospect it was more complicated than necessary. Although I said I’d write only one comment, therefore, I’ll write one more. This time forget the second thought: let’s not rule out conduction or convection. Let’s take a breath and try once more.
First, let’s not forget what the question before the house is: Can the steady-state outgoing surface radiation of a planet whose atmosphere is perfectly transparent to all wavelengths exceed the radiation that the planet receives from its sun(s)?
Next, let’s make an observation: If the surface radiates, the surface had to have obtained the power it’s radiating from one of two places: (1) the sun by radiation or (2) the atmosphere by (because of the atmosphere’s perfect transparency) conduction. But any power that the surface receives from the atmosphere had to have been obtained by the atmosphere from the surface by conduction; since the atmosphere is perfectly transparent, there’s no other way. And, ultimately, the power the surface supplied the atmosphere came from the sun.
With that in mind, let’s follow two joules of energy that the sun has radiated down onto the planet. Let’s say that the planet’s surface promptly re-radiates first joule. In this connection we’ll observe an important fact: if the atmosphere is perfectly transparent, any radiation the surface emits once is lost. It’s gone. It can’t have been stored in the atmosphere, because, again, the atmosphere is perfectly transparent; radiation passes right through it without loss.
So here’s our box score so far: two joules received from the sun, one joule radiated from the surface. Rather than radiating more than it received, the surface has so far emitted less.
Now let’s follow the second joule. Let’s say the surface transfers it by conduction to the atmosphere. Perhaps at the surface the atmosphere is dense as a neutron star. Perhaps it’s as rarefied as the thermosphere. Doesn’t matter. Either way, the joule was transferred by conduction, so the surface doesn’t have either one any more. But our box score hasn’t changed: it’s still two joules in, one joule out, because the surface didn’t radiate the second joule out; it left by conduction.
But now let’s say that the atmosphere does all those things with that second joule that Mr. Wilde says happens. Frankly, I can’t make sense of what that might be. Maybe it gets transported up and down the atmosphere, gets cycled back and forth by conduction between the atmosphere and the surface a few times, gets incantations recited over it—whatever. So long as the atmosphere remains involved, though, one thing doesn’t happen: it’s not re-radiated; as we said before, if the surface has radiated it once, it’s gone unless the atmosphere isn’t completely transparent.
So again the box score remains two joules in, one joule out, not, e.g., the 2.2 joules out I described in connection with the radiative-atmosphere model.
Now let’s say that the surface gets that second joule back from the atmosphere and finally radiates it. This does change the box score, to two joules in and two joules out. Since the surface has radiated both joules, moreover, all the energy has been spent. So the surface didn’t radiate more than was received from the sun(s).
Note that it didn’t matter what Mr. Wilde did with those joules, and it didn’t matter how dense the atmosphere was. Once the surface radiated them once, they were gone, and the surface emitted only what the sun did.
That’s the difference between a non-radiating atmosphere and one that radiates: as I showed in the numerical example, the joule isn’t necessarily gone with a radiative atmosphere when the surface radiates it once; the atmosphere may radiate it back so the surface can radiate it again. That’s how the surface can radiates more in total than is receive from the sun.
the joule was transferred by conduction
The air is a very good insulator, so conduction only heats the air to a few centimeters from the surface. There is not enough air in those few centimeter to ‘take up’ that second joule.
You have already strayed away from a useful thought experiment.
No need to continue.
“The air is a very good insulator, so conduction only heats the air to a few centimeters from the surface.”
Conduction AND convection, which is essentially conduction within an atmosphere.
I don’t have time to offer a lot of response to anything but to Joe: thanks for comment. My question is, do you disagree with what I posted, and if so, what and why? Can the atmosphere be “warmer” than the surface by the logic I laid out?
I’ll have to take a break from all this. It would be good to continue so we can resolve some issues but naturally Anthony and Willis think this is silly so why bother? Bother because we can have an infinite regression of silliness: alarmists say those who deny alarm are silly, we say alarmists are silly, WUWT turns to NZ and says they’re silly, NZ says WUWT is silly, etc., etc. It would be nice to resolve some basic issues; it matters to people like me who have no horse in the race (i.e., I don’t give a damn who wins) but who so far see that NZ/Wilde/Holmes make the most sense on the most basic and fundamental level.
Pressure matters. A lot.
Don132
Pressure, along with the sun, does.
Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.
I’m taking a bit of a break too since this thread is long enough and the primary objectors are resorting to abuse whilst refusing the process of going through the logic step by step as I have said in my comment below.
I might continue to answer sensible questions from interested persons though.
Leif on pressure and sun:
“Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.”
Good point.
” … there is ample evidence for the presence of liquid surface water and even life in the Archean (3.8 to 2.5 billion years before present), so some effect (or effects) must have been compensating for the faint young Sun. A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011RG000375
Agree that the pressure theory must be consistent with the faint sun paradox.
Don132
Don132:
Sorry, but this discussion has lost its amusement value for me, so I’m not going to go back through all your comments.
I’ve already explained that (1) the only mode of heat flow between a non-radiative atmosphere and something else is conduction between it and the planet surface, so (2) at steady state that net flow must net to zero, so (3) the only source of the power for the planet surface’s radiation is the sun, and (4) since the atmosphere is non-radiative the surface can’t radiate the same energy from the sun more than once, so (5) the surface can radiate no more than it receives from the sun if the atmosphere is non-radiative.
(If the atmosphere is radiative, on the other hand, then the same energy from the sun can be exchanged radiatively between the surface and atmosphere before it’s lost to space, so the surface can radiate the same power from the sun more than once, as my arithmetic nearby would have shown you if you’d worked through it.)
You’ve rejected that logic, stating that point (2) makes no sense, your reason being that greater density means greater conduction and more warming of the surface by the atmosphere. There’s little likelihood that I could impart understanding to someone who finds that rationale compelling.
Sure, greater density means greater conduction, but it means greater conduction in both directions: more flow into the surface where the surface’s temperature is lower than the atmosphere’s, and more flow out of the surface where it’s higher. On average, though, those flows have to net to zero. Otherwise the atmosphere’s energy would increase indefinitely or decrease to zero.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wilde seems to have confused you on this point, saying thing like, “[Y]ou still have an energy store in the convecting atmosphere which constantly takes say 1 joule from the surface in one location and simultaneously returns 1 joule to the surface in another location so that the surface remains hotter than before convection started.” Sure, if convection is occurring, then heat is flowing in at one place and out at another, making one place hotter and the other cooler than if convection weren’t occurring. But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection.
Let’s set aside the fact that such local heating and cooling would actually make the surface cooler if you take the resultant radiation into account. We’ll hold in abeyance, that is, that the same radiation results from a lower average temperature when the temperature distribution is more uneven. I.e., we’ll forget that higher temperature variance makes the same average temperature cause more radiation (
).
Mr. Wilde’s contention that convection causes the surface to be hotter than it otherwise would be ultimately requires the impossibility that convection gives some opacity to an otherwise perfectly non-radiative, and thus perfectly transparent, gas so that the atmosphere radiates back to the surface. If he weren’t requiring the non-radiative gas to radiate, then he would be admitting that the only mechanism of energy transfer between the atmosphere and the surface is conduction.
But, if conduction is the only mechanism, then so long as the atmosphere’s average temperature at the interface exceeds the surface’s, there will be net heat flow from the atmosphere into the surface, and that flow will reduce atmospheric energy until the average temperature difference across the interface is zero: on average the surface and atmospheric interface temperatures have to be the same if the atmosphere is non-radiative. (Leif Svaalgard’s statement that air’s an insulator needn’t detain us; it doesn’t conduct well, but it conducts.)
You didn’t follow all that, did you? I didn’t think so. So you’ll believe that what Mr. Wilde says makes sense.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that we all have our innate limitations. Me, I can’t even remember my own phone number. I mean no disrespect here—and I may be wrong—but to me you appear to be among the many whose limitations include vulnerability to confusion in the face of physical-science arguments of moderate complexity.
Again, I may be wrong. But that’s the way it seems to me. So I’ve concluded that any further attempt to help you would be futile.
“But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection. ”
But it does, it must.
Follow the steps in my description and if you have a problem at any point just ask me.
Have you read it ?
“Sure, if convection is occurring, then heat is flowing in at one place and out at another, making one place hotter and the other cooler than if convection weren’t occurring. But that doesn’t make the average temperature higher than it would be without the convection.”
If it is circulating without escaping then the warmth in one place will will warm the other place too.
The other place only cools during the formation of the atmosphere. It doesn’t cool after that because the energy required is from then on taken from circulating air and not from the surface.
But the warmer circulating air is still there warming both locations the same amount for as long as the circulation continues, effectively forever.
And the extra energy cannot be radiated out because it is taken up in the next ascent INSTEAD OF cooling the surface.
So the surface must be 288k for Earth (insolation PLUS circulated warmth) with radiation to space at 255k as observed.
The fact is that convective overturning does introduce opacity to outgoing IR by tying energy up in a closed loop.
Joe Born,
Sorry, we’re all getting a little tired of this and I apologize that I didn’t link to the comment I was referring to, which is here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
I’ve admitted that I was wrong about non-GHG atmospheric conduction making the surface warmer– somewhere I said that, can’t find it now. I thought it through a bit more. So then you agree that Willis’ model planet that “proves” that NZ are wrong is itself wrong? Because the atmosphere can’t warm the surface if it doesn’t radiate?
So if you read the above-referenced comment, then yes, I agree with you. But you may find the rest of it interesting– or not. In any case, even though we’re all getting tired, I’d be interested in your response.
Don132
The atmosphere affects the surface most by reducing cooling.
Under a clear night sky with non radiative gases descending from above the surface will radiate to space in the usual way but the cold surface will pull out KE from that descending air and will not get as cold as it would have done without that extra KE.
The not as cold air then circulates around to the warm side and helps to warm it to a higher level than S-B because the warm side was ‘expecting’ the even colder air in order to remain at S-B
Leif
“Neither explains the ‘faint sun’ paradox and as such I dismiss both.”
.
Complete nonsense – just what do you know about the science here?
The faint Sun paradox is easily explained by the insolation/auto-compression model.
Really, one wonders how much attention you are paying to the debate and to the science?
This so-called ‘paradox’ is fully explained in my upcoming book on climate change, here is an excerpt;
“Billions of years ago, when the Solar System was young, astronomers say that because of stellar evolution theory the Sun must have emitted about 30% less energy than it does now (Hart, 1979); yet the Earth somehow did not become a frozen ball of ice (Ueno et al., 2009).
The only logical explanation for this according to proponents of the enhanced GHE, is the level of CO₂ and other GHG in the atmosphere at the time, which kept sufficient heat in the troposphere to keep the oceans liquid, (Foukal, Fröhlich, Spruit, & Wigley, 2006; Jenkins, 2000; J. Kiehl & Dickinson, 1987).
However, as will be seen in the section on auto-compression, if the atmosphere had a greater surface pressure than 1 bar billions of years ago, then perhaps the paradox could be solved (Sorokhtin, Chilingar, Khilyuk, & Gorfunkel, 2007).
It has been suggested that the Earth’s atmosphere has generally been >1 bar, and indeed reached up to 3-5 bar in the period 2.5 – 3.5Gya (L. F. Khilyuk & Chilingar, 2006), this pressure ‘spike’ being mostly due to outgassing of CO₂.
If the gas partial pressure was high enough, this could have provided a lot of warming to the troposphere in the Hadean-Archean termination ~3.8Gya. There is evidence that the partial pressure of combined CO₂ + N₂ was high at that time, and possibly even earlier; a calculated partial pressure of N₂ alone of ~1.2 bar (L. F. Khilyuk & Chilingar, 2006) (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009) (Sorokhtin et al., 2007) has been made.”
‘The air is a very good insulator’
Bingo!
A blanket traps air in its fabric, making it likewise a good insulator.
If you wrap a blanket round a person, that person’s temperature increases. Yet, if you wrap the same blanket around a block of steel at 38 degrees C, the temperature of the steel does not increase. Why?
The answer of course is because a person has a steady, internal source of new heat while a block of steel does not. The insulating blanket causes the person’ temperature to actually increase, but all it can do for the block of steel is to slow its temperature decrease.
This easy to answer question is a reminder that the real world earth is nothing like a black body. Sometimes the earth acts like a person wrapped in a blanket and sometimes it acts like a block of steel wrapped in a blanket.
During the day, the earth acts like a person in a blanket. After dawn, the sunlight starts to heat up the surface which, for the rest of the daylight hours, becomes a steady source of new heat for the atmosphere which steadily warms it up through conduction, convection and radiation. By sun-set, the atmosphere contains a lot of heat.
At night, after the sun sets, the earth changes its behavior and starts to act like a block of steel. The sun is no longer heating the surface so it begins to cool. However, the surface cannot cool below the temperature of the air immediately above it – it has to wait until that air cools first. Hence the atmosphere slows the cooling of the earths surface, just like a blanket slows the cooling of the steel block.
So, sometimes the earth is acting like a person in a blanket and sometimes it acts like a block of steel in a blanket. It’s a lot easier to look at the earth as it really is rather than to keep comparing the earth to a black body. If you look at it as it actually is, then your experiments and measurements become easier to interpret.
For example.
Add one new molecule of man-made CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere. Actually, what you would be doing is taking a molecule of carbon out of the earths surface and combining it with a molecule of O2 from the atmosphere. The net effect in the atmosphere is one less molecule of O2 and one extra molecule of CO2. Don’t forget, the CO2 molecule has very poor eyesight. It does not know if it is day or night – or whether the earth below it is acting like a person in a blanket of a block of steel in a blanket. All it knows is its own temperature. For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit. Some of those emissions will be up and that energy will be lost to space. Think about that for a moment. One new man-made molecule of CO2 means an increase in energy loss to space. All that chaotic maelstrom of activity below the molecule continues, the amount of sunshine is the same, the extra CO2 molecule causes some extra energy loss to space. If everything else is unchanged and there is an increase in energy lost to space, this means increasing atmospheric CO2 radiation actually cools the total earth/atmosphere system. I suppose that is why it’s called a radiative gas.
It also would explain why, in the real world rather than the black body world, we observe that changes in temperature happen before changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
This is the opposite conclusion to the one people reach when they start with ‘consider the earth as a black body’. The earth is nothing like a black body.
As Leif says, ‘The air is a very good insulator’. Start from there.
At night, after the sun sets, the earth changes its behavior and starts to act like a block of steel. The sun is no longer heating the surface so it begins to cool. However, the surface cannot cool below the temperature of the air immediately above it – it has to wait until that air cools first.
The surface will cool and the air immediately above it will follow. One way to make ice in the Sahara desert is to put an insulated bucket of water out at night.
https://www.fieldstudyoftheworld.com/persian-ice-house-how-make-ice-desert/
For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit.
No the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is predominantly in the vibrational ground state so it emits no photons. If it absorbs an IR photon in the 15 micron band it will be excited to the first vibrational state and then is capable of emitting a single photon. Near the surface it is more likely to be collisionally deactivated however.
Bernard
Not completely true. If the air was a perfect thermal insulator then OK; but the ground surface has two ways of losing heat.
1. By contact with the overlying air; conduction which then causes convection air movement leading to surface replacement of the warmed air by colder air during overturn.
2. By surface radiation directly to space through the atmospheric window; solid surfaces are much better emitters of thermal radiation than gases.
It is the efficient and effective radiation from the solid ground surface through clear cloudless air that leads to the creation of night-time ground frosts in winter (as in Phil’s Sahara Desert example).
Direct to space ground surface cooling also leads to the formation of an inversion layer; where the air in direct contact with the ground is colder than the air above it. This process of surface radiative cooling is also why the weather forecasters often mention ground frost as occurring first, before the formation of air frost, on cold winter nights and also explains the presence of ice on the windscreen of your car in air temperatures above 0C.
This process of thermal radiation leaking from the solid ground directly into space is included in Trenberth’s diagram and given a value of 40 W/m2. See Stephen Wilde’s post here for further analysis of Trenberth’s work.
Phillip,
Thanks for the reply.
I assume that you do agree that the atmosphere slows the cooling of the earth’s surface at night. This would happen whatever the composition of the atmosphere … with or without CO2. As Leif says, air is a good insulator.
>>
This process of thermal radiation leaking from the solid ground directly into space is included in Trenberth’s diagram and given a value of 40 W/m2.
<<
I’ve studied KT-97 for years. I’ve even made a simple model of it. That 40 W/m^2 calculation is suspect.
I grew up just before the computer/calculator revolution. In those days we had to use trig and log tables. One of the things we were taught was how to interpolate between values. Notice this statement from KT-97:
Now this old student remembers how to interpolate. If the upper value is 99 W/m^2 and the lower number is 80 W/m^2, then the interpolated value should be around 87 W/m^2. When I point this discrepancy out, most people don’t see the problem. What KT is doing is interpolating between 99 W/m^2 and 0 W/m^2. If 0 W/m^2 is the correct lower value, then why mention 80 W/m^2?
I guess that 40 W/m^2 is the correct value, and it doesn’t matter how you get it.
Jim
Despite the quibbles about the way it functions, what you say is still true.
Because the Diurnal Temperatures say so.
Not true for H2O though as it works the opposite way, slowing the heating in the day as well as the cooling at night.
The real storers of energy in the atmosphere are N2 & O2 because they can’t radiate.
Phil,
I said:
For whatever reason, this new CO2 molecule will begin to emit photons of energy in random directions. The higher its temperature, the more photons it will emit.
You said:
No the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is predominantly in the vibrational ground state so it emits no photons. If it absorbs an IR photon in the 15 micron band it will be excited to the first vibrational state and then is capable of emitting a single photon. Near the surface it is more likely to be collisionally deactivated however.
If you are correct then there is minimal downward IR from CO2 and so little to worry about. If I am correct and there are emissions, my point is that some of them are upward and escape to space which means adding CO2 cools the planet. Either way, increased CO2 is not going to be a problem.
For the ~15 µm C=O bond, there are 13 permitted vibrational energy transitions spanning 544-1064 cm-1, the most important being from the ground state (where most atmospheric CO2 molecules reside). Some of these transitions have similar energy of ~667 cm-1 and produce the large central peak at 15u. Other vibrational transitions are less prominent, but two at 618 cm-1 and 721 cm-1 are obvious in CO2 spectra. There are many transitions involving changes in bond rotation levels. These produce the many smaller IR absorption peaks to either side of each center vibrational peak. Other vibrational energy changes produce similar associated distributions of rotational energy changes. For CO2, a change in rotational level (absorption or emission) cannot be produced by photon interaction alone unless a vibrational change also occurs. However, changes in rotational energy levels can and do occur through molecular collisions.
I
Bernard
I have just found your comment. Like all good questions it is not one that is easy to answer. An answer of “well it depends”, while possibly correct, is not very satisfactory. So, please bear with me while I try and make my position as clear as possible.
In this thread we are dealing with a model scenario. The purpose of any model is to reduce the complexity to a level that maintains the key process of the system, following the rule of simplification of “thus far but no further”. Simple one-dimensional models of atmospheric profiles are not models of climate systems.
Climate is a dynamic fluid system that transports heat energy from a source region A with excess heat, to a sink region B that has a heat deficit. As with any mass transport system it must form a closed loop, else the material necessary for the dynamic flow of heat disappears and the transport mechanism ceases as the fluid carrying the heat freezes solid.
This is the first and most fundamental point about a climate system; it has a source area (region A) that is physically separated in surface location from a sink area (region B).
The second key point is that the source region A collects heat at the surface, the base of the atmosphere. On rocky planets the solid surface is both a good absorber of radiant energy and also a good thermal emitter.
Gasses are poor absorbers and emitters of radiant thermal energy, so they heat most effectively by contact with the sunlit warmed surface during the day, and cool most effectively by contact with the radiatively cooled ground surface by night.
There is an issue here: –
The solid ground cools by thermal radiation to space all the time (both day and night), but it only gains most heat during the hours of sunlight during the day.
Now the fluid transport mechanism carries the heat from the source region A to the sink region B where the heat can be lost to space from the surface by thermal radiation. The key question is where in the atmosphere’s vertical profile does this heat loss most effectively occur?
Before I address that point, let us look again at the simplest possible model planet, one that has these features:
It is a planet that has a solid surface.
It is a planet that does not rotate.
It is a planet with no atmosphere.
For this planet only one hemisphere can receive solar heat, (side A) the other side (side B) will be at a temperature of absolute zero (0 Kelvin). Well perhaps 3K if you include the cosmic background temperature, all right 36K if you include geothermal heat flux. But the point is that the average temperature of this airless world (AK + BK)/2 will be LOWER than the same planet covered by an atmosphere.
Why is this so? Well, let us add to the model an atmosphere (of whatever type) that is capable of transporting heat from the lit side A to the dark side B, and then returning it back to the lit side to form a closed dynamic heat carrying mass-transport loop. In other words, this planet now has a climate system. However, on this world with its mobile dynamic atmosphere the average global temperature rises.
This apparent paradox is due to the nature of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, far less energy is needed to raise the cold solid surface B from 0K to 100K, than is needed to raise the temperature for the warm solid surface A from 200K to 300K. So, a small horizontal energy flux by fluid atmosphere transport from the warm side A to the cold side B will deliver sufficient energy to significantly raise the temperature of site B on the unlit dark side. This rise will be more than the temperature drops at site A on the lit side, (where the solar energy is received) and the temperature only falls from 300K to 299K. Therefore, the average temperature of the planet’s total surface (A+B)/2 increases purely due to the presence of the fluid transport mechanism.
Your question is about the thermal properties of the air on our real world slowing the loss of heat from the surface. Here we come face to face with one of the most fundamental misconceptions sometimes made about the atmosphere in Earth’s climate system, that the lower atmosphere is opaque to thermal radiation. This is not a mistake made by Trenberth, he correctly identifies the presence of the atmospheric radiative thermal window. The solid ground can and does export thermal radiation directly out to space, and it does this with brutal efficiency on clear cloudless nights (particularly so on the high ice plateau of Antarctica during the dark of the Austral winter).
The presence of moist air slows surface to space heat loss, the presence of clouds also slows the process of heat loss to space, the presence of warm advected air slows the process of heat loss to space etc. But nothing can stop the planet’s surface from losing heat in the absence of a heat delivery system to slow down that loss. This heat delivery system can be the warmed radiant daytime sunlight, or warmed night-time air aloft with a given heat capacity, but the ground always cools by radiative heat loss to space whenever the air above is clear.
Yes, air slows the rate of surface cooling at night, but only because it is delivering heat to the surface, most abundantly in the form of sensible heat, and also by latent heat release during surface dew formation. The quality, quantity and mechanism of radiant heat delivery from the atmosphere back to the surface, as per Trenberth’s model, is an issue for another thread.
Joe,
Even when the system gets back to two joules in and two joules out you still have an energy store in the convecting atmosphere which constantly takes say 1 joule from the surface in one location and simultaneously returns 1 joule to the surface in another location so that the surface remains hotter than before convection started.
The only way you will get it is to go through my initial description step by step.
The fact is that when you have convection between a surface and space the surface can carry more heat than is allowed out to space. In a sense, conduction and convection introduce a degree of opacity to IR radiation even if non radiative materials are involved. That is the issue that the objectors cannot get their heads around because for them a surface at 288k must radiate to space at 288k which it does not so they have to introduce DWIR to balance the budget.
But then the budget is still unbalanced because they have ignored the thermal effect of KE released by the downward leg of vertical convective cells such as the Hadley circulation.
“There are over 1000 comments on the top post.
A lot of people are interested.
I’d say a good portion of us are still unconvinced of Willis’ argument.”
Sorry, but there is but one reason that there are over 1000 comments on this thread ….
And his name is Stephen Wilde.
He is the one ‘pushing’ a pet (and as auch a sky-dragon slaying) theory.
Just a few people remain caught up with his confusion.
With him keeping the ball rolling.
Stephen has p####d of Willis with his intransigence, as is the case with such types.
Do denizens remember a certain Doug Cotton?
Exactly.
Stephen has got himself banned from some contrarian Blogs because of this.
The deluded in search of their hearts desire by the rejection of reality.
Get over it please.
Would you expect NWP models to work if the GHE theory did not work.
Cue more delusion.
Anthony,
Then just address my errors, please, in the comment you reference. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/#comment-2577836
I repeat, I have no horse in this race other than that so far as I can see right now, NZ are basically correct. And yes, overall I’m defending Stephen, at this point.
One problem is that we jump all over the place when the task at hand was simply to address Willis’ hypothetical model, which supposedly refutes NZ. With focus and civility we could have done it.
Don132
Amthony, my full refutation has not appeared so let me just say that this thread id 1100 posts long because no objector has addressed my description stage by stage in sequence.
Instead, they have all gone off in irrelevant and sometimes bizarre tangents.
If there is a flaw in my description it could have been spotted and pointed out and disposed of within 50 posts.
All this confusion is evidence that that cannot be done.
no objector has addressed my description stage by stage in sequence.
I did so as below which you totally failed to address.
“On an airless body such as the moon the heat transfer equation for a location (on the equator for example) is as follows:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4
where Cs is the effective heat capacity of the surface, Ts is the surface temperature, Ri(t) is the time dependent insolation and -εσTs^4 is the radiational heat loss term.
At dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases. Ri(t) follows a cos curve, maximizing when the sun is at ‘noon’, the temperature follows with a slight lag and on the moon at dusk is ~30K above the dawn temperature.
Add a IR transparent atmosphere and the system’s governed by the following equations:
CsdTs/dt = Ri(t) – εσTs^4 – kh(Ts-Ta) (1)
CadTa/dt = kh(Ts-Ta) (2)
As before, at dawn the surface will start to heat up as Ri starts to increase and -εσTs^4 follows as Ts increases, but not as fast as before because of the the additional conduction term. That conduction causes the air temperature, Ta, to increase as indicated by equation 2 with a lag maximizing slightly later than the surface at a slightly lower temperature. After dusk Ri(t) becomes zero and Ts cools due to radiation heat transfer as in the previous case, however the surface cools more slowly as Ta is higher than Ts. The air near the surface will also cool as indicated by equation 2. To accurately model the system you would need more equations for additional levels of the atmosphere, such as:
CadTa1/dt = kh(Ts-Ta1) – kh(Ta1-Ta2) (2)
CadTa2/dt = kh(Ta1-Ta2) (3)
Etc.”