Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog
June 7th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Abstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain very cold, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics. Variation of the model input parameters over reasonable ranges do not change this fact. This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post regarding why climate scientists use ~340 W/m2 as the global average solar flux available to the climate system, here I present a model which includes how the incident solar flux (starting with the 1,370 W/m2 solar constant) varies across the Earth as a function of latitude and every 15 minutes throughout the diurnal (day/night) cycle.
I am providing this model to avoid any objections regarding how much solar energy is input into the climate system on average, how that averaging should be done (or whether it is even physically meaningful), whether the nighttime lack of any solar flux should be excluded from the averaging, whether certain assumptions constitute a “flat-Earth” mentality, etc. Instead, the model uses the actual variations of the incident solar radiation on the (assumed spherical) Earth as a function of latitude and time of day. For simplicity, equinox conditions are assumed and so there is no seasonal cycle.
This is not meant to be a realistic model of regional climate; instead, it goes beyond the global averages in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram and shows how unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon. The model “evolves” the final temperatures, from any starting temperature you specify, based upon a simple energy budget equation (energy conservation) combined with an assumed surface heat capacity. Imbalances between absorbed solar energy and emitted IR energy cause a temperature change which eventually stops (in a long-term average sense) when the daily rate of emitted IR energy equals the daily absorbed solar energy.
The time-dependent model has adjustable inputs: the solar constant (1,370 W/m2); an albedo (for simplicity assumed 0.3 everywhere); the depth of the surface layer responding to solar heating (using the heat capacity of water, but soil heat capacity is similar); and, the assumed broadband infrared emissivity of the surface controlling how fast energy is lost to space as the surface warms. I set the time step to 15 minutes to resolve the diurnal cycle. The Excel model is here, and you are free to change the input parameters and see the results.
Here’s how the incident solar flux changes with time-of-day and latitude. This should not be controversial, since it is just based upon geometry. Even though I only do model calculations at latitudes of 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85 deg. (north and south), the global, 24-hr average incident solar flux is very close to simply 1,370 divided by 4, which is the ratio of the surface areas of a circle and a sphere having the same radius:
If I had done calculations for every 1 deg. of latitude, the model result would have been exceedingly close to 1,370/4.
If I assume the surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep, a global albedo of 0.3, and a broadband IR emissivity of 0.98, and run the model for 46 days, the model reaches very nearly a steady-state energy equilibrium no matter what temperature I initialize it at (say, 100K or 300 K):
Note that even in the deep tropics, the average temperature is only 29 deg. F. At 45 deg. latitude, the temperature averages -11 deg. F. The diurnal temperature variations are very large, partly because the greenhouse effect in nature helps retain surface energy at night, keeping temperatures from falling too fast like it does in the model.
There is no realistic way to remove the very cold bias of the model without including an atmospheric greenhouse effect. If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse. The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included. The supposed warming caused by atmospheric pressure that some believe is an alternative theory to the GHE would cause (as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out) surface temperatures to rise, making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldn’t want to violate the 1st Law).
I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included. The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am also busy with an investigation setting the speed of warming/cooling in K/annum as it happened at 52 weather stations from 1974 [i.e. the derivative of the least square regression equation] out against latitude.
So far it looks quite interesting.
It is going to take a few weeks still but I will keep you informed of the results.
THIS ALSO SERVES AS A LITMUS for measuring bias and emotional angst. As a retreat to “first principles” of energy it is useful, and even at a glance I gain interesting nuggets like in the deep tropics, the average temperature is only 29 deg. F. At 45 deg. latitude, the temperature averages -11 deg. F. and the fascinating steady state chart that demonstrates only in the tropics does temp rise (then then fall) past the magical 32F phase change of water.. So from this foundation the first credible “amplification effect” of our Goldilocks Planet seems to be the fact that water can change phase somewhere on its surface, daily. Or at least that is how it strikes me.
Some commenters bring in surface temperatures on the Moon for comparison, and what surprises me is they are saying there is something wrong with this model instead of just going with it for a moment and musing out loud, “so if this is true there must be something else too, such as” to suggest the NEXT layer of the model. Well we all know there is something else, many things, and though I don’t know much about Science Book I’d be tempted to suggest air pressure (atmosphere) and moisture (since we now know there is phase change and UV triggers evaporation directly).
Please know I’m not singling anyone out, I’d like to see this simple model built upon with contributions from all. I’d like to see an exploration of the idea that daily capability of water phase change somewhere on the planet might set an Earthlike climate system in motion, given [2] and [3]. What are 2 and 3, and (the main discovery to be made) how much further until we have a comparable model?
Hocus Locus, go get one of the UN IPCC climate models.
Way before human sourced CO2 came alone, weather pattern variation was just as likely to occur. The major teleconnected systems; 1) current continental positions, 2) orbital mechanics, 3) atmospheric short and long term systems, and 4) oceanic top, middle, and deep currents, are bound to create weather pattern variations on short and long term time spans. These variations nudge overall climate this way and that until something overwhelmingly major happens. Human sourced CO2, a tiny nearly not there part of our world, doesn’t have a chance in hell of being even a minor player in warming or cooling nudges to the climate, let alone epic changes. The best it can do is add to the non-human CO2 fertilizer in teeny amounts. I perspective, I would bet that insects give off way more CO2 than human do.
1-4: Good summary. Perhaps 3 and 4 could change position as atmospheric systems are adapting more quickly to oceans as the reverse.
To be clear here, the dominant GHG would be water vapor everywhere except the driest of deserts, isolated from a moist maritime air mass.
Also I note that even though this is an equinox, seasonless simulation, the ~46-day lag is also in play at solstices. Which tells us every Northern European knows; that is, you go to the Med on holiday in the first half of August for the best chance of warmth.
“All heat is friction”
Heat is always at its highest temperature near the heat source. Determine the mechanism, then evaluate the resistance to cooling by insulating factors like clouds/CO2. Carbon dioxide is 4/100 of 1% of our atmosphere and is insufficient in quantity to be an effective insulator. One out of 2500 air molecules.
Water vapor H402 (not H2O as many mistakenly believe) covers much of the planet, 30% more or less, continuously and has unique properties. It has six atoms in the molecule that expand so much that is it absorbs a great deal of the IR spectrum. This prevents solar heating as well as slowing down heat loss from the ground by reflection and insulating. Not a greenhouse, just a vapor barrier.
Water vapor always cools, just as evaporation from your skin or evaporation from the ocean has a cooling effect.
When water freezes, it expands. It becomes more buoyant and floats. Water vapor expands so large that it floats on oxygen and nitrogen even though it’s four hydrogen atoms heavier. This displaces air which results in a lower air pressure. A storm cyclone. When water vapor condenses into rain, it is no longer buoyant resulting in a vacuum and lower air pressure generating wind which always blows towards the low pressure system to fill that void.
The drop in air pressure has a cooling effect, always. Just like going to the top of a mountain, or up in a plane. The drop in atmospheric pressure always cools.
Hi pressure is associated with heat. The deeper the air column, the higher the barometric pressure, the greater the heat. (death valley is below sea level) Reproducible in every environment, on every planet with an atmosphere. The deeper the atmosphere the greater the pressure, the higher the frictional heat generated. This is why the earth is 100° warmer on average than the moon, even though we are both in the green zone.
The dry Chinook winds that flow down the mountain causing the deserts, spontaneously heat 5.4° for every thousand feet it descends. All extreme temperature weather records are associated with the Chinook winds, even in Antarctica. The odd part is, I’ve never seen it mentioned in any of the global warming models.
This effect is true even for the sun itself. The higher you float up above the 10,000° photosphere, the cooler the Suns atmosphere becomes. That is until you reach the chromosphere and suddenly the temperature jumps 200 times that of the photosphere to 2,000,000°
The suns interior is believed to be 50,000,000°. Talk about a violation of the laws of thermodynamics! That’s like putting a cube of ice in a oven on maximum for 1000 years and the ice cube has grown bigger!
Everything you think you know is about to change.
If water vapour was H4O2 (which it is not), water vapour would be more dense than air (which it is not). Most of the rest is incorrect too (obviously)
This model is possibly correct for a planet with a pure nitrogen/noble gases atmosphere and no oceans.
However there is apparently no heat transfer between surface and atmosphere, which will occur even with a completely non-GHG atmosphere, albeit more slowly. I am also uncertain whether convection would really net cool the surface with a non-GHG, non-condensing atmosphere, it seems to me that it would only move heat from hotter to colder parts of the surface.
In any case a completely non-GHG atmosphere is probably impossible in the real universe.
Some moons in the solar system appear to have tenuous atmospheres (if they qualify as such) consisting of pure O2. Water vapor from their icy surfaces is immediately ionized into H and O molecules, with the low mass H2 promptly being lost to space.
Jupiter’s Europa is one and Saturn’s Dione another. The latter’s is so wispy that some call it an exosphere. Saturn’s second largest moon, Rhea, sports a mostly O2 atmosphere, but with some CO2, in about a 5:2 ratio. Saturn’s Enceladus, by contrast, has “air” of 91% water vapor.
Jupiter’s largest moon Ganymede (most massive of all solar system moons) also proably has an almost pure O2 atmosphere. But it could include ozone, a GHG. Its and Europa’s “air” might also include trace amounts of sodium.
Jupiter’s atmosphere is about 89% hydrogen and 10% helium.
Those figures are for Jupiter’s upper atmosphere by volume, not mass, for which it’s more like 75% hydrogen and 24% helium.
One of the greatest steps of climate science evolution would be to get rid of the phrase, “greenhouse”, altogether.
Just start over without this really poor choice of terminology. Rewrite all the books, the lectures, the internet sites. Just get rid of it. It’s the wrong word to use.
I am sure we had these discussions before…
….a large portion of earth’s albedo consists of radiation from the sun deflected off from earth by the GH gasses.
I called that the anti-greenhouse effect.
so, if GH gases increase, how do we know that the netto effect is that of warming rather than cooling?
Clouds are not GHGs, henryp.
No. Clouds, snow and ice are parts of earth’s albedo not meant by me…
Without going back and searching, IIRC, you said GHGs reflect (some of?) the Sun’s radiation, henryp. Please correct me if I remember incorrectly or was confused as to what you said/meant.
Yes, Dave
that is what I said.
GhG’s, especially O3, HxOx and N-oxides are responsible for a lot of radiation being deflected off from earth. In fact, we can quantitatively determine CO2 on other planets by measuring its deflection of sunlight in a certain UV band.
In the near IR we can even measure the deflected radiation coming off from earth from the GHG’s via the moon…so it went: sun-earth – e.g. CO2 (green line fig 6 bottom) – moon – earth
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
So which is more and where is the report showing me how much radiation (heat) is deflected off from earth by each GHG versus how much it traps on earth?
So, henryp, which is stronger: CO2 sun reflection cooling or CO2 GH warming?
Dave
with the absorptions of CO2 in the UV, & in the near- and far IR, 0-5 um, I am thinking that the cooling effect might be bigger than the warming effect. Did you measure it? [it is so small????}
As you can see from my comment elsewhere there is some man made warming caused by more man made vegetation [vegetation has increased by about 30-40% in the past 40 years or so but that could also be due to more CO2]
Strangely enough, in my country I could not find any warming, let alone man made warming. You can read my report on that or look here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7944heslj7gg7q/summary%20of%20climate%20change%20south%20africa.xlsx?dl=0
Dave, how does that fit in your picture of AGW?
Absorption is not reflection, henryp. Atmospheric absorption of the Sun’s radiation would lead to atmospheric warming.
With the absence of a tropical tropospheric hot spot, I don’t think one can conclusively prove significant AGW. Any significance of AGW depends on unproven strong water vapor feedbacks.
I remain, however, agnostic as to AWG. That said, I firmly dispute CAGW and the accuracy of UN IPCC climate models.
sorry Dave
absorption was the wrong word that I know is now being used to explain that 25% of incoming radiation is being ‘thermalized’
That is nonsense.
The Gh and anti GH effect is where radiation is send back in the direction where it came from, mostly.
…..the correct word for absorption is extinction.
I’m sorry, henryp, but your explanation is incoherent.
I really don’t understand “The Gh and anti GH effect is where radiation is send back in the direction where it came from, mostly.” And “…..the correct word for absorption is extinction.” seems to violate the physical laws of energy transference.
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but aren’t the flux measurements just indications of rates of energy coming in at each latitudinal angle, for each square meter, for one second, and there is no indication of how many seconds this occurs or how much energy results from this to actually create the surface temperature?
How is an instantaneous measure of solar flux a temperature resulting from this flux’s being applied throughout the entire day at a given latitude? Shouldn’t we be looking at how this flux enables the temperature at the respective latitude to evolve, instead of considering this flux alone AS the temperature resulting from its application throughout the day?
The earth’s global ocean surface has average temperature of 17 C.
This is [or causes] Earth global average temperature of 15 C.
What if the earth average ocean surface temperature was 3.5 C, rather than 17 C?
good point.
it is always the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about….
he has been travelling lately, faster this last 100 years than before,
north -east if we go by the magnetic north pole
The amount of energy that the oceans can retain is determined by the weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the ocean surface because that weight in turn determines how much energy is required to effect the phase change from liquid to vapour.
The ocean then determines the air temperature of a water planet.
In the end it is all about atmospheric mass.
Variations in the internal flows of the oceans serve exactly the same functions as variations in the pattern of air circulation around the globe.
Those variations are the global thermostat in action in their successful attempts to keep the system in hydrostatic equilibrium.
GHGs are irrelevant because atmospheric mass is all that matters.
Stephen, please direct me to a climate science textbook that surmises “GHGs are irrelevant because atmospheric mass is all that matters.”
Well I recall that as being the consensus view in the mid 20th century but I’ve been unsuccessful finding a text book from that period and the novelty of the internet tends to omit stuff from before its inception.
But atmospheric mass it is whether you like it or not.
OK then, Stephen. Good bye.
You don’t need a climate science textbook to show this. The atmospheric mass are hugely relevant and a lot more so than composition of greenhouse gases.
Mars
95.97% carbon dioxide
1.93% argon
1.89% nitrogen
0.146% oxygen
0.0557% carbon monoxide
Surface temp.min mean max
Kelvin 130 K 210 K 308 K
Celsius −143 °C −63 °C 35 °C
Fahrenheit −226 °F −82 °F 95 °F
Surface pressure
0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa 0.00628 atm
Venus
96.5% carbon dioxide
3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride
Surface temp. mean
Kelvin 737 K
Celsius 462 °C
Fahrenheit 864 °F
Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)
Very little difference in composition of CO2 gases between them, but 527k difference.
I weep, Matt. Show me a textbook; I don’t have the time to screw around with you zany ideas.
Zany???
That is science mate.
A C, I’m forced to the same response I gave Stephen: Goodbye.
Stephen Wilde
Man has always known about it. That is why the Sun was a god.
good point.
it is always the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about….
he has been travelling lately, faster this last 100 years than before,
north -east if we go by the magnetic north pole
Gosh this thread went off the rails quickly. I appreciate Dr. Spencer producing these simple models in an attempt to explain foundational points. Yet, why is this necessary?
There are many engineers, working and retired, who post here. No reasonably competent engineer can seriously dispute the “greenhouse” effect of CO2 and H2O, especially after having taken a heat transport course. It is not possible to calculate heat transport in combustion, for example, without considering the infrared properties of these gases.
On the other hand, admitting there is a greenhouse effect takes one not very deeply into the totality of this very important debate–climate, climate history, energy supply, economics, etc. Alarmists who think the debate is over once I admit a greenhouse effect have no clue.
Kevin
Is it a ‘foundational point’ to acknowledge conversion of KE to PE in rising air and then ignore the reverse process in descending air ?
Surely that is a ‘foundational’ accounting error ?
Stephen
I have read through your commentary here to try to gain an idea of what this conversion of KE means. I admit to not figuring it out.
The heat capacity of air is about 1 kiloJoule (kJ) per kilogram per degree (C) change in temperature. This is about equal to the KE of a kilogram of sea level air moving at 42 meters per second (m/s). One degree C temperature change is small as temperature changes go; while a 40m/s air speed is pretty large regarding wind speed. In other words KE is not very important as a determinant of temperature.
With regard to changes in PE; indeed as air falls in elevation it warms at 10C/km because the atmosphere is doing work on it, and as long as it loses no heat though other processes it cools at 10C/km when it gains elevation because it now does work against the atmosphere. This is a major factor in explaining why Death Valley is hot and Laramie is cool; but it is not the entire story. Heat transfer is the rest of the story, and the thermal radiation properties of certain trace gases is part, an important part, of that story.
It is CliSci abuse of assumed/speculated feedback effects that has led us here, not GHG theory. UN IPCC climate models have been proven to be insufficient to fundamental alter our society, economy and energy systems.
With all due regard, the CliSci preoccupation with celebrity and left-wing politics has done more.
“There are many engineers, working and retired, who post here. No reasonably competent engineer can seriously dispute the “greenhouse” effect of CO2 and H2O, especially after having taken a heat transport course.”
No reasonably competent engineer would ignore the 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter which is not greenhouse gas which causes the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
They might also notice that 70% of earth surface is transparent liquid, and wonder why anyone would base a model on a blackbody surface.
Show us the textbooks, gbaikie. Anybody can create a semi-plausible mathematical model.
–Dave Fair June 9, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Show us the textbooks, gbaikie. Anybody can create a semi-plausible mathematical model.–
I suppose some textbook will mention that tropical ocean is heat engine of world.
Some might mention the gulf stream adds a considerable amount to average temperature of Europe.
Oh seems some are arguing against the textbooks:
“Generations of schoolchildren have been raised on the belief that the mild British winters and cool summers are due to the moderating influence of the Gulf Stream, a warm ocean current flowing from the Gulf of Mexico to the shores of western Europe.
Without the Gulf Stream, our teachers told us, Britain’s winters would be as cold and ice-bound as a frozen port in Newfoundland and its summers as hot and stuffy as a Moscow August.
But the text books have got it wrong, according to scientists who have just finished a study of what makes western Europe cool in summer and mild in winter.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/forget-about-the-gulf-stream-britain-is-really-kept-warm-in-winter-by-the-rocky-mountains-118560.html
I think I am still going to believe the textbooks and I have doubts about the rocky mountains have much effect upon Europe.
A slight problem with the analysis in my view. If you want to rewrite natural law then anything is possible but totally meaningless in a real world sense. On the other hand, if one accepts the dictates of natural law then no green house gases means not only no CO2 but also no water vapour. No water vapour means no clouds and that implies the albedo of earth would be far lower so insolation would be far higher. Once that is done the average temperature comes out at around +5C using stefan boltzmann law. To consider the impact of one effect of water vapour without also considering the other effects is simply disingenuous. This has been the whole crux of the issue, if water vapour causes warming and clouds cause cooling then what is the total impact? More importantly, what is the INCREMENTAL impact. In this context it is important to consider that the warming effect of water vapour is logarithmic like all green house gases but the cooling impact of clouds is much more likely to be close to linear since we are nowhere near saturation point for clouds (well under 100% average cloud cover). So cloud cooling will rise much faster than GHG warming with increasing water vapour.
The combination of a linear plus non linear effect from a feedback parameter is a quite common situation in control systems. It acts to establish an operating point maintained by negative feedback which is exactly what sceptics are claiming.
Another point, people keep assuming that without green house gases, weather on earth would still exist just colder. Consider, the atmosphere does work, it generates wind and raises water to higher altitude. We harvest some of that energy in wind turbines and hydroelectric stations and we experience some of that work in hurricanes. But where does that energy come from???? Simple, the atmosphere is a heat engine converting thermal energy into mechanical work and thus like all heat engines it must obey carnot’s laws. That means there has to be a hot junction where heat energy is absorbed and a separate cold junction where heat energy escapes from the system. 100% efficiency is impossible. Well the hot junction is pretty obvious – its the surface where heat energy is absorbed form the hot surface but where is the cold junction. It must be a location where heat energy escapes from the SYSTEM and that means in this case – escapes to space. That’s also obvious, its the tropopause (or lower stratosphere) – the coldest region of the atmosphere but how does heat energy escape??? It radiates to space but the only species capable of radiating energy at the temperature of the tropopause are the green house gases (oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate in the thermal infrared, if they did they would be green house gases and the entire global warming discussion would be moot). Without green house gases the atmosphere could not lose energy to space so there would be no cold junction, thus no carnot cycle and thus the atmosphere could not do work ie: there would be no atmospheric convection, no weather, no lapse rate, no rain, no wind and no life at least on dry land.
Michael
“Without green house gases the atmosphere could not lose energy to space so there would be no cold junction”
Most of what you say is right, but this isn’t. Any temperature difference can drive a heat engine, and tropics to poles, or even day to night will do.
Hi Stephen,
nice talking to you again!
I am thinking about what you said. I agree with the last statement, i.e. GH gasses are irrelevant to global T, as IMHO they make only 0.5% of the atmosphere and cannot contain much heat because there is no mass. The re-radiated light from GH gases are permeable in O2 and N2 – so it cannot not heat the O2 and N2.
I am a bit skeptical about the atmosphere being the main reason why the oceans have as much heat as they do. Most evaporation is coming from the UV hitting the top layers of molecules causing instant boiling point. IR makes the water a bit warmer also. But don’t you think that most heat from the oceans came from its origin = i.e. inner earth and is still being maintained by its [moving] origin?
That could also explain why some places on earth get warmer whilst other places get cooler. [I am still working on that investigation]
Hi Henry
Hope you are keeping well.
Heat from the interior appears to be negligible.
It gets absorbed pretty quickly near any geothermal hotspots and is rapidly dissipated. There are short term regional disturbances from large heat releases but they soon get neutralised by convective changes within the oceans.
The bottom of the ocean is cold which would not be the case if geothermal heat were any sort of driving force.
As regards atmospheric pressure do note that the higher the pressure the more energy is required to achieve the phase change. The boiling point is pressure dependent as confirmed by the lower boiling point at high elevations.
Atmospheric mass controls the surface temperature with or without oceans.
Stephen,
interesting discussion.
you say
Heat from the interior appears to be negligible
I am just not sure about that. You forget that there are a lot of active volcanoes in the middle of the atlantic and in the pacific oceans. Most recently a volcano exploded just off the coast in Indonesia. I think they said it was equivalent to 20 Hiroshima bombs all going off at once…
Go with me in a gold mine here, just one or 2 km down and quickly notice the sweat on you face??? Ja, how big is the elephant in the room, exactly?
In fact, looking at 1) the places where earth quakes recently occurred and 2) the movement of the magnetic north pole, I can even predict where the next big earth quake is likely to occur.
USA west coast…
And what exactly is the influence of the change in earth’s magnetic field on the weather? How do I explain that since 1974 average temperature here in South Africa has not changed whilst minimum temperatures have dropped by 0.8K?
So far, my investigations show the following [preliminary results]
1) warming is greater at the higher [latitudes]
2) warming is lower or even negative (i.e. cooling) at the very low [latitudes]
3) warming is higher in the NH than in the SH
Go figure. [AT THE VERY LEAST: AGW theory does not fit in?]
But I am not saying that I reject your theory that the oceans are insulated from cooling off too fast by the atmosphere pressing down on them. Thanks for the comment, I am adding it to my list….
I am just not ready to disregard any source of heat to explain the currently observed warming.
Charles TM, Roy Spencer
What I miss in the model’s description of the GHE-free planet is why the albedo still is at 0.3, and not at 0.12 like on the Moon, i.e. on a water-free, rocky planet.
I understand this 0.3 value as being valid for an Earth where the planet as it is now – i.e. with water vapor, clouds, liquid oceans and CO2 – has moved due to harsh cooling into an ice ball (which has by accident a 0.3 albedo as well).
I suppose such a situation is reached when Earth reaches the bottommost position within one or more Milankovitch cycles, thus having reached least solar irradiation.
All water vapor constituents in the atmosphere have precipitated, and all oceans are frozen. Atmospheric CO2 concentration goes down to a minimum as well.
Otherwise I don’t understand the model. Did I miss something? Correction(s) welcome!
Since clouds cover 60% of earth’s surface at any one time and they are responsible for 85 % of the DWIR through reflection, clouds are much more important then the GHG’s. Clouds can make a difference of 11 C at night .
If the radiative greenhouse gas hypothesis is valid it must cause higher temperatures during the day as well as night. If the main components of the greenhouse effect are water vapour and clouds a comparison of day temperatures at places with high or low levels of these two components should be instructive.
For example, Singapore is on the equator, is calm, surrounded by very warm ocean waters, has extremely high levels of humidity (water vapour) and is often cloudy but a top day temperature of only 37C. If the average greenhouse effect of 33C is deducted, the top temperature reduces to just 4C. Is this plausible?
On the other hand hot deserts have very low levels of water vapour and clear skies but maximum day temperatures can be as high as 50C, eg Oodnadatta, Australia 50.7C in 1960 and Furnace Creek USA 56.7 in 1913. Day temperatures at numerous places in dry inland Australia often reach the high 40C’s.
Phoenix and Atlanta USA have the same latitude and nearly the same altitude but vastly different climates. Atlanta is sub-tropical and humid while Phoenix is dry desert. Despite having much lower levels of humidity compared with Atlanta, in every month of the year the average day temperatures are much higher at Phoenix.
At face value it would seem higher levels of water vapour in the atmosphere may lead to lower, not higher, day temperatures.
Exactly.
The oceans together with the water vapour and rain it creates are distributors of warmth from hotter areas to cooler. Water vapour on average reduces the gravitational dry lapse rate of 10ºC/km to 6.7ºC/km which results in an increase in potential temperature of 3.3ºC/km.
The 33ºC warming from water vapour that I see is that of the average increase in potential temperature of 3.3ºC/km which at a 10km tropopause equals a number 16.5ºC warmer than it would be otherwise at the expense of a cooling at the surface by the same amount.
The deserts are hot because of the global average temperature.
The global average temperature is relate to average temperature of most of the area of Earth.
70% of Earth surface is ocean. The average surface temperature of the ocean surface is 17 C.
And average surface temperature of land is about 10 C.
Making the average global temperature of about 15 C.
If average global temperature was 10 C, then the temperature of entire atmosphere would be colder- or 10 tons per square meter of atmosphere would be 5 C colder.
If entire atmosphere was colder, the deserts would be colder.
But what is warming the atmosphere is air above the ocean surface which average 17 C.
But what warms the world, what heats the world, is the tropical ocean which is 40% of the ocean and has average temperature of about 26 C.
And in terms of deserts, water vapor of tropics rises, and dry air falls on the horse latitude. When falls the air becomes warmer and less water vapor. Or wet warm air goes up and when falls it’s as warm but drier. So Deserts even if at night are 0 C, are starting with warmer air. And to get temperatures near 50 C in day, one needs weather [high pressure systems] which over days of time become warmer.
Simple rule, land gets the higher surface temperatures, ocean can only warm to about 35 C due to evaporational cooling. But in terms of global temperature, ocean warm the world and land cools the world.
Hypothetical setup here: suppose you had a 20 foot long cylinder a bit wider than a tennis ball with ordinary tennis balls spaced a foot apart and a foot from either end, and this whole setup is in zero G.
What happens if you start to accelerate the cylinder along the long axis at 1 G?
Where would you expect to find most of the tennis balls at any given time?
Where would you find the most energetic tennis balls?
Now, we know they would stop bouncing eventually unless we put some nut with a racket at the top end but that’s just absurd.
What if the tube had originally had evenly dispersed gas molecules instead of tennis balls, and one end had a really bright lamp?
If you leave it floating in zero G and turn the lamp on the gas will end up heating evenly through the tube eventually right?
What if you turned the lamp on and accelerated the tube so the lamp end was the front and/or new top locally?
Why is it so strange to expect the gas to pile up and warm up near the non-lamp end as the more energetic molecules bounce up and off of the lamp before returning?
I mean, gravity isn’t something you can abstract away as though the lapse rate was just a quirky factoid, something is keeping these gases piled up down here near the surface right? Something keeps them from fully escaping–besides those pesky kids hydrogen and helium–and lets us enjoy a nice warm and dense soup of air despite the sun regularly kicking them full of energy all the damn time.
Distribute a cloud of gases as massive as our atmosphere around a model planet as massive as ours at T=0, spread them out evenly up to say the top of our stratosphere.
Now if you let them fall as you start the day/night input/output cycles rather than assuming they were just arbitrarily arranged a certain way, what do you think would happen?
Stephen,
interesting discussion.
you say
Heat from the interior appears to be negligible
I am just not sure about that. You forget that there are a lot of active volcanoes in the middle of the atlantic and in the pacific oceans. Most recently a volcano exploded just off the coast in Indonesia. I think they said it was equivalent to 20 Hiroshima bombs all going off at once…
Go with me in a gold mine here, just one or 2 km down and quickly notice the sweat on you face??? Ja, how big is the elephant in the room, exactly?
In fact, looking at 1) the places where earth quakes recently occurred and 2) the movement of the magnetic north pole, I can even predict where the next big earth quake is likely to occur.
USA west coast…
And what exactly is the influence of the change in earth’s magnetic field on the weather? How do I explain that since 1974 average temperature here in South Africa has not changed whilst minimum temperatures have dropped by 0.8K?
So far, my investigations show the following [preliminary results]
1) warming is greater at the higher [latitudes]
2) warming is lower or even negative (i.e. cooling) at the very low [latitudes]
3) warming is higher in the NH than in the SH
Go figure. [AT THE VERY LEAST: AGW theory does not fit in?]
But I am not saying that I reject your theory that the oceans are insulated from cooling off too fast by the atmosphere pressing down on them. Thanks for the comment, I am adding it to my list….
I am just not ready to disregard any source of heat to explain the currently observed warming.
Your point does of course raise a question. Is the volume of the atmosphere variable over time/latitude leading to a change in pressure?
The surface of ocean temperatures constantly releasing energy remove this cold bias without the need for greenhouse effect, unless you count the ocean as the elephant in the room regarding it. The incident solar flux when comes in contact with water is able to accumulate energy with high specific heat capacity. The air in not able to achieve anything remotely close to this.
The atmosphere warms from below not from above because the solar flux is transparent to greenhouse gases. This causes the very lapse rate we see in the atmosphere and regions least influenced by surface ocean water move closer to the incident solar flux. eg. Antarctica.
The difference in incident solar flux and greenhouse house gases in the atmosphere do not explain the behaviour of seasonal Arctic and Antarctic regional temperatures.
I have 3 main scientific objections to the greenhouse gas effect.
1. There’s never been any direct observations nor controlled experiments to show it. Given a Nobel prize probably awaits the scientist who empirically demonstrates it and refutes the Laws of Thermodynamics, why is this?
2. It is not a scientific concept nor theory. It has no scientific definition, and no falsification criteria. It is not science.
3. It’s one of those ‘how long is a piece of string?’ ideas. It seems to be infinitely flexible for predicting the end of the world. And end which never arrives; and cannot.
Carbon Dioxide Absorption Power and the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Eddie Banner
Global warming is certainly happening and much has been written about the Greenhouse Gas effect and it’s claimed warming of the Earth’s surface. The ideas have been based on the ability of molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to absorb infrared photons of 15 micron wavelength, but very little, if anything, has been published about the power which can be handled by the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, GHG advocates claim a “radiative forcing” of about 2 Watts per m2 at the Earth’s surface. The following calculations show that this GHG theory cannot be correct.
Consider a standard column of the Earth’s atmosphere, based upon an area of 1 square metre of the Earth’s surface.
The number of molecules in this column (1) is 2.137*10^29
So at the current concentration of carbon dioxide, 400ppm, the number of molecules of carbon dioxide is (400*10^-6 )*(2.137*10^29 ) = approx 8.5*10^25
From the HITRAN database (2), the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb a 15 micron photon is given by its absorption cross-section, which is 5*10^-22 m2 per molecule. (Note that this database gives the value in cm^2 ).
So, in an area of 1m^2 the number of molecules required to absorb 1 photon is 1/(5*10^-22) ; that is 2*10^21 CO2 molecules per m^2
But there are 8.5*10^25 molecules of CO2 in the column.
So the number of photons which can be absorbed is (8.5*10^25) / (2*10^21)
= 4.3*10^4 photons per m^2
Now, the energy of a 15 micron photon (3) is 1.3252*10^-20 Joule
So the energy absorbed by all the CO2 in the column = (1.3252*10^-20) * 4.3*10^4 Joule
= 5.7*10^-16 Joule per m^2
This process can be repeated many times per second because the excited CO2
molecule can release its energy by collision with any molecule in the atmosphere, ready to absorb another photon of the right energy. The mean free path in air at atmospheric pressure (760 torr) is about 0.1 micron, and the molecular velocity is 465 m/sec, and so the mean time between collisions is about 2*10^-10 second. So the process can be repeated about 5*10^9 times per second.
Therefore, the maximum power which the carbon dioxide (at 400ppm) can handle is (5*10^9)*(5.7*10^-16) Joule per second per m^2, that is approx. 3*10^-6 Watts.m^-2
Whereas the Greenhouse Gas theory requires about 2 W.m^-2 , which is about 700,000 times the power available. This seems to show that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is not valid.
References
(1) http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints3/976/
(2) http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
(3) https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/energy-of-photon
“Whereas the Greenhouse Gas theory requires about 2 W.m^-2 , which is about 700,000 times the power available. This seems to show that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is not valid.”
Most believers regard CO2 as acting like insulation.
They says it acts as a blanket.
The more confused believer think back radiation increases temperature rather decreases heat loss.
But I don’t think even if added 5 watts per square meter, it would cause much increase in global temperature as there are other factors involved.
Our Southern Hemisphere gets more sunlight as compared to Northern Hemisphere because the Southern Hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when Earth is closer to the sun during our Perihelion.
Sunlight, wiki:
Earth: [AU distance 0.9833 1.017} Watts: 1,413 1,321
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
And Earth’s Southern Hemisphere is about 1 C cooler than compared to Northern Hemisphere.
Or there is other factors other than watts which affect global temperature.
Which version of the Greenhouse effect are you talking about?
* climate consensus version?
* 23% of the primary effect is CO2?
* 5% of the primary effect is CO2?
* 66% of it is due to positive feedback?
* Primary effect is halved due to negative feedback?
* it’s an already saturated greenhouse gas effect?
* its strangely stopped 17 years ago
* it’s still happening, but is only warming the oceans?
So many different theories, but none have testable falsification criteria. A bit like string theory and grand unification; an almost infinite variety of possible theories with no way to test them against reality. No falsification criteria.
–Mark Pawelek June 9, 2019 at 4:58 pm
Which version of the Greenhouse effect are you talking about?
* climate consensus version?
* 23% of the primary effect is CO2?
* 5% of the primary effect is CO2?
* 66% of it is due to positive feedback?
* Primary effect is halved due to negative feedback?
* it’s an already saturated greenhouse gas effect?
* its strangely stopped 17 years ago
* it’s still happening, but is only warming the oceans?
So many different theories, but none have testable falsification criteria….–
If one asserted that back radiation warmed the surface, then that could be easily falsified.
And therefore such idea tends not to favored by the professional “climate scientists”
That is the best pice of “Science” that I have seen which totally demolishes the CO2 “control knob” theory.
I have long been asking the question about energy of CO2 photons compared to Solar Radiation and you are the first person to give an answer.
Everybody who believes in the CO2 back radiation believe that all photons are the same, which I have never been able to understand.
Thank You.
I am going to bookmark your post.
Roy posted this on facebook and I commented:
Fresh asphalt midday at the equator should reach nearly 110°C with 6% atmospheric scattering reduction and no shortwave absorption from water vapour.
Roy replied:
I don’t know what point you are trying to make. You are assuming unrealistic conditions. Just put numbers into the spreadsheet model and see what you get. Here, I did it for you. For a 2 inch thick layer of asphalt (albedo = 0.05) the afternoon temperature reaches 150 deg. F, but drops below 0 deg. F at night! The 24 hr average is 61 deg. F, which is still too cold for tropical Earth, even though you have assumed 0.05 (not a realistic 0.3) albedo. But the real Earth albedo isn’t that low. I’m talking about using real-world global average values of solar flux, albedo, etc., and showing that the resulting temperature are unrealistically cold with a greenhouse effect. If you think the results sound not too bad for Sahara temperatures, well, its albedo is 0.4, which gives a 24 hr average temperature of only 8 deg. F!
To which I replied:
Well you quoted temperatures without a greenhouse effect, which means no water vapour and no clouds. So the only reductions in that case are atmospheric scattering and the asphalt albedo.
394K maximum, minus 6% scattering, minus 16% atmospheric shortwave absorption, and minus 30% albedo, is 339.7K or 66.5°C (your 150°F).
Are you actually adding the surface albedo to the global mean albedo of 0.3?
—————————————————————————————————
So I got a maximum of 65.5°C with 0.3 albedo, and Roy got 65.5°C with 0.05 albedo. I haven’t heard back from him yet.
Roy, I am absolutely appalled by how many scientifically illiterate postings there are on this Thread. No wonder skeptics get a bad name.
Earlier, I asked one of the pressure cowboys to cite a textbook supporting his theories. His response was that he saw one mid-20th Century, but couldn’t remember where or by whom.
From now on, I’ll insist that theories presented on WUWT and other blogs be supported by textbook citations or references to replicated studies. CliSci pseudo studies don’t count; sociology affects climate, feminist glacieology, 97% consensus, hide the decline, 3X water vapor feedback, invalidated UN IPCC climate models and etc. FCS!
We need to name and shame pseudo skeptics.
You have been given a perfectly clear description of the process involved supported by a mathematical model from Philip Mulholland and another poster has pointed out that the observations support the pressure based approach.
And yet all you want to do is close down the debate without making any attempt to rebut the description, the model or the observations.
Show me the textbooks, Stephen. I have neither the time nor the specialized expertise to rebut every far-out scheme described on WUWT.
The current text books all deal only with the radiative theory but here we are discussing Roy’s ‘model’ which accepts cooling by upward convection but then omits warming by downward convection with continuous recycling between the two.
A clear accounting error which you and apparently he do not wish to address.
It is Roy’s model that is ‘far out’.
Dr. Spencer’s model is not exhaustive; it is meant to illustrate a principle.
”The current text books all deal only with the radiative theory but here we are discussing Roy’s ‘model’ which accepts cooling by upward convection.”
No cooling by upward convection Stephen:
See top post: “If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse.”
If the surface cooling by upward convection were included, surface warming by downward convection would offset the cooling exactly over the 4-12 annual periods these have been measured for the surface energy balance. What goes up by convection, comes down by convection as hi-lo pressure cells offset each other.
Trick,
Spencer is only able to ignore convection because he replaces the effect of convection with downward IR.
The time delay between the cooling effect of upward convection and the warming effect of downward convection causes an accumulation of energy within the system which must heat the surface.
The surface has to be hot enough to both maintain radiative equilibrium with space AND maintain ongoing convective overturning.
Convection must not be ignored.
Those are all unfounded claims Stephen. You simply make them up. Convection simply moves existing thermodynamic energy around in the system for no net change in multi-annual mean surface temperature.
Stephen, Philip Mulholland’s post assumed no radiation then of course concluded radiation has no effect.
Dave Fair is correct, you’ve never been able to cite the basis of your claims. It is not Dave that needs to step up his debate, it is you – Stephen needs to up his game and the modern sources are readily available to do so.
You’ve been trying for over a decade to sell your theories with very little success which should indicate to you those theories need to be improved. Your theories CAN be improved by some hard work/study where you learn just enough pre-req. basics about calculus, Planck radiation to discover how radiation DOES work in a planetary atm. It’s not that easy but completely impossible for one that hasn’t yet accomplished the pre-req.s such as yourself which you continually demonstrate.
Dr. Spencer just couldn’t take your comments anymore with all your unfounded claims. He has a couple of recent posts up that you should try to follow in detail; where you don’t understand the detail – work on your own or with a tutor to acquire the knowledge to understand. And….AND learn to experiment to back your claims.
I did not make any unfounded claims to Roy Spencer. In my opinion he saw the implications of the well known mundane truths that I put to him and simply closed his mind.
If the numbers work without radiation then radiation has no effect on the baseline surface temperature but it is acknowledged that it would have an effect on the surface distribution of energy because it is the surface distribution of energy that responds to radiative imbalances in order to neutralise their thermal effect.
“In my opinion…”
Yes, most all of your claims are unfounded Stephen & are only your opinions. You are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.
I mean, aren’t there text books which describe the ideal gas law and acceleration due to gravity out there? Sure getting a solid explanation of both in one text might be less common I suppose, but dang, are text books so different nowadays that they just leave this kind of stuff out?
I mean, I know the Feynman Lectures cover both to more than a satisfactory level but would you really care if I bothered to go and dig up the exact ones?
Fighting a comfortable belief with prickly facts doesn’t really work unless someone wants to ask why they believe something, I’ve never had much success trying. Just seems strange to run around with so much certainty about something to the point you’re willing to ostracize others for doubting it. I like questioning what I think I know and updating my knowledge when it is found to be flawed, which science is great at, but there is little comfort to be found in varying degrees of informed doubt, it just seems better than reinforcing a cherished belief in a pet idea to me.
No, Max. I develop my scientific opinions over years of observation and study. It takes more than pet theories and elaborate mathematical calculations by random blog commentators to change them.
If you want to change my opinion, come forward with credible, scientific sources. As an example, Christopher Monckton’s ECS calculations are interesting, but I’m waiting for critical, creditable and detailed analyses before I could agree.
Maxwell’s Theory of Heat States it clearly pp330 to 350. NASA data from spacecraft show it clearly. Brett Keane
Which NASA data, Brett?
Dave, the solar system atmospheric data read in place by many satellites starting with venera and Voyager.
I gave you the salient pages. Seek and find if you really want to know.
Study IGL deeply including how it heats stars to fusion. Ask Roger Tattersall on Tallbloke’s Blog.
We live on Earth, Brett.
Oh, and what part of “Maxwell’s Theory of Heat” applies to the topic here under discussion?
Pressure continues to be excoriated here. But Astrophysicists rely on it to ignite stars from initially 3 K, with a bit of help where needed from Tunnelling. IGL as per Maxwell and Poisson. Test your beliefs against them then come back here please. Brett Keane
Obviously then Dave Fair, you are just a troll, worthless and dumb. Earth is in the solar system and the proof is found in the congruence. Whether or not CO2 is present, or any other so- called ghg. Again, it is the triumph of gas laws and thermodynamics over lust to get rich destroying Western Civilisation. Good Luck with that and being smarter than Maxwell, or the NASA Living With A Star team. Brett Keane
I’m the Troll, Brett? You deny that the radiative properties of certain atmospheric gases have an effect, along with many other process, on the temperature profiles of Earth’s atmosphere.
You seem to take a few fundamental properties of heat transfer and gas pressure effects and extrapolate them to a whole novel way of accounting for temperature profiles in Earth’s dynamic air/water interactions which, btw, involve massive transfers of energy that are difficult or impossible to measure accurately. It is energy transfers into, around and out of the entirety of the Earth’s sea, land and atmosphere system and its operation that determine the different heat profiles measured.
You have built a sand castle and will not listen to various scientists when they tell you how things actually work. I have dealt with many technical minded people like you that are ultimately bitterly frustrated when their complex, unproven theories are not supported in time by others. I have managed many large scientific, engineering and financial operations and I know of what I say here.
I believe CliSci has exaggerated or misapplied the theory of H2O and its possible feedbacks, that’s all. They believe a minor increase of a trace gas could lead to cascading, serious climate catastrophe. In their frenzy, they will not address valid scientific criticisms. Their reliance on invalidated UN IPCC climate models for temperature, humidity, rainfall and drought evolution, and their exaggerated assumptions as to the biological effects of minor warming are all of great concern. Additionally, their practice of ignoring the positive effects of CO2 is scientifically damming.
Money, power, and ideology of all sorts drive the CAGW hoax. Get off your pet theory if you want to effectively counter the madness.
There is nothing novel in my pressure based description of the mechanical processes involved in convective overturning.
Every component of the description is based on well established observations and thermodynamic principles.
In order to attack my description you must demonstrate that some element of the description does not work as proposed and provide reasons.
My description has been in the public domain for several years now and no one has been able to do that.
Philip Mulholland has successfully created a mathematical model based on the sequence of events set out in my description and it works, even making observationally accurate predictions in the process.
Stephen, I don’t have to demonstrate anything; it has been done many times over the years. Goodbye.
“In order to attack my description you must demonstrate that some element of the description does not work as proposed and provide reasons. My description has been in the public domain for several years now and no one has been able to do that.”
Dave is correct. Elements of Stephen’s description do not work as he proposes as pointed out by many commenters over the years which is why Stephen has to continue to try and sell his views. Stephen never puts numbers behind his work so his work is almost totally unfounded, almost purely imaginary. Phillip Mulholland assumed no atm. radiation thus his conclusion atm. radiation has no effect merely follows from his assumption.
“Pressure continues to be excoriated here. But Astrophysicists rely on it to ignite stars from initially 3 K”
Just an observation, nuclear fusion is well understood. (The difference between a chemical reaction and a fusion reaction is radiation) The energy output of a star requires a great deal of fused elements giving off a very measurable amount of radiation… Our sun radiates “A factor of three” too less gamma radiation then that is required for minimal Solar output. In short, our Sun is not nuclear, and the proof is, we are not all dead.
It is assumed that the weight of a stars atmosphere creates so much heat that fusion is achieved.
With no fusion elements as a by product then we can we assume that the heat and pressure of the atmosphere is all that is required for the dramatic result we are observing.
At some level, the atmosphere turns into plasma from the heat. Because hydrogen becomes superconductive under pressure, The electrical energy flows in the path of least resistance through the photosphere to the chromosphere where it heats and emitts light at the same frequencies and wavelength as a bolt of lightning through a hydrogen atmosphere as shown with spectral analysis. It’s a “Thermal pile effect”.
The same heating technique occurs in relation to gravity on every planet with an atmosphere. Thicker the atmosphere, the more heat generated below it at the surface.
Jupiters transition zone has just been upgraded to more than 16,000°, about seven times higher than the surface of the sun. It has been shown that it’s magnetic field is the result of electrical currents from a atmospheric layer of plasma.
I have a text book written in the late 1800s that says that the sun must be covered with 9 feet of coal every hour over its entire surface to maintain its output. It must be right if it’s in the textbook.