Guest post by Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated.” Richard P. Feynman.
In this dual scene montage, we see on the left the Earth viewed by the DSCOVR: Deep Space Climate Observatory from its position in solar orbit at the sun side Lagrange Point. In this view we also see the fully illuminated far side of the Moon as it transits the Earth at new moon on the 5th July 2016.
On the right is the iconic image of Earthrise taken on 24th December 1968 as Apollo 8 orbited the Moon. The continent of Antarctica is clearly visible, fully lit as the Earth’s axial tilt presents the south pole towards the sun at the height of the austral summer. The image is displayed here in its original orientation, though it is more commonly viewed with the lunar surface at the bottom of the photo. (Image Caption Credit NASA).
1. Introduction:
The history of Climatology is long and honourable, indeed the very concept of climate goes back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who identified the three main climatic zones known to the ancient world. These zones are: –
A. The Torrid Zone – located to the south of Greece in Africa.
B. The Frigid Zone – located to the far north of Greece where lives Boreas, the god of the north wind and winter.
C. The Temperate Zone of Europe, where the four annual seasons occur, and Greece is most favourably located.
Aristotle’s three climate zones can be directly linked to the three main atmospheric circulation cells that we now recognise within the Earth’s atmosphere. These three cells are: –
A. The Hadley cell, which is a thermal cell, driven by solar radiation from space heating the planet’s surface. Two zones of Hadley cells exist in our atmosphere, these are both found in the Tropics and are generally located between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer in the northern hemisphere and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south. The Hadley cell’s poleward limit is located in the Horse Latitudes; where a zone of descending air exists forming surface high pressure anticyclones. It is the Hadley cell that is the defining atmospheric feature of Aristotle’s Torrid Zone.
B. The Polar cell, which is also a thermal cell, but it is driven by atmospheric circulation caused by radiation cooling from the ground surface directly to space. This radiative cooling produces an atmospheric surface inversion, that is most noticeable in winter. The Polar cell’s equatorward limit is marked by the Polar Front, an oscillating band with an associated strong horizontal surface temperature gradient; above which is found the jet stream of the upper troposphere. The Polar cell is responsible for the formation and surface export towards the equator of cold dense airmasses. It is the Polar cell that is the defining atmospheric feature of Aristotle’s Frigid Zone.
C. The Ferrel cell, which is a mechanical cell, located between the Hadley and Polar cells. It acts as a buffer or cog between the latitudinal limits of the two thermal cells, and has a circulation pattern that abuts and links these two opposing cells. The Ferrel cell forms a zone of mixing and ascending air that is associated with cold cored cyclones. It is the Northern Hemisphere Ferrel cell that accounts for Aristotle’s Temperate Zone, with its annual seasonal changes and varied weather patterns.
This essay completes a four-part series of analysis begun with Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space, in which using basic meteorological data, a technique to calculate the average temperature of the Earth was demonstrated. The second essay in this series An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget, discussed the mechanism by which the current climate science paradigm, which uses atmospheric power intensity flux recycling in the form of back-radiation accounts for the currently observed average temperature of the Earth. The third essay Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus, presented an alternative climate model, using the process of atmospheric circulation on a hypothetical tidally locked planet, to demonstrate that convective atmospheric mass motion recycling can be invoked to explain the greenhouse effect.
In this current essay we use the modelling strategy of Noonworld, and by creating a three-element parallel model constrained to the atmospheric data used in the CERES study, apply this concept of convective atmospheric mass motion flux recycling to study the climate of the Earth.
In formulating this study, we have incorporated into the analysis elements designed to address valid and constructive criticisms made by commentators of the previous essays.
In building a three-element parallel model the primary distinction being studied is between slowly rotating Venus, with its hemisphere encompassing pair of Hadley cells, and rapidly rotating Earth, with its triple cell per hemisphere configuration of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells.
The use of a parallel configuration for the model design addresses the concern raised that the primary motion of the Earth’s atmosphere is predominantly zonal and not meridional flow. This design also addresses a feature of tropical climate best summed up as “Nighttime is the winter of the tropics.”
The issue of planetary axial tilt, leading to polar winters dominated by little or no solar flux and summers with no nighttime, was addressed by splitting the polar cell sub-unit in the climate model into two distinctly separate modes of operation. For the summer all convective activity is assumed to recycle the descending air directly back onto a lit arctic surface. By this means the low intensity solar flux inherent at high latitudes is amplified by a process of atmospheric short circuiting during the arctic summer. By contrast during the arctic winter the polar sub-cell unit in the model is assumed to have zero solar influx, and all of the power intensity used to drive the atmospheric circulation arrives by advection from the adjacent Ferrel cell.
Finally, we have adopted a more nuanced approach to the issue of lapse rate, using a wet adiabatic lapse rate for the Hadley cell, an intermediate environmental lapse rate for the Ferrel cell, and a dry adiabatic lapse rate for the Polar cell. This approach is in contrast to the analysis of G.C. Simpson (1928) where he adopted a uniform planetary lapse rate of 6oC/km in his paper “Some Studies in Terrestrial Radiation”.
2. Methodology.
Our modern understanding of the dynamics of the Earth’s planetary climate, and the role that radiant energy has in defining the features of the atmospheric circulation system, has progressed with the formulation of the energy budget diagram used to quantify and rank the importance of the constituent elements of the climate system (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997). A key metric of the energy budget is the standard Vacuum Planet equation exemplified by Sagan and Chyba (1997). This equation is used in Climate Science to calculate the expected thermal emission temperature Te of an illuminated globe under the average solar irradiance that pertains for a planet’s average orbital distance from the sun, and for that planet’s specific Bond albedo.
From Sagan and Chyba (1997): –
“The equilibrium temperature Te of an airless, rapidly rotating planet is: –
Equation 1: Te ≡ [S π R2(1-A)/4 π R2 ε σ]1/4
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, ε the effective surface emissivity, A the wavelength-integrated Bond albedo, R the planet’s radius (in metres), and S the solar constant (in Watts/m2) at the planet’s average distance from the sun.”
The results of applying this Vacuum Planet equation to the Earth are shown in Table 1:
We are attempting here to analyse the energy flows for the Earth’s three atmospheric circulation cells using the simple Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport Model (DAET) previously introduced for the study of the climate of Venus. The Earth is modelled as a spherical globe that cuts a circular silhouette, or disk shadow from the beam of the solar irradiance at the planet’s average orbital distance from the Sun. The average fraction of the illumination beam, that the silhouette for each of the three circulation cells intercepts during the course of a year, is latitude dependent.
For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell for each hemisphere is from the equator to latitude 30o. The Ferrel cell extends from latitude 30o to the (ant)arctic circle and the Polar cell occupies the remaining latitudes around the pole of rotation. The tropical Hadley cell of energy surplus intercepts 60.90% of the illumination, the temperate mechanical Ferrel cell of energy transport intercepts 36.29%, and the frigid thermal Polar cell of energy deficit intercepts the remaining 2.81% of the Sun’s energy cut out by the disk silhouette (Figure 2).
The Earth has the form of a globe, and because of this spherical shape the surface of the Earth is unevenly illuminated. The location of the maximum possible power intensity at the surface of the Earth occurs at the solar zenith, the unique point on the Earth’s surface where the Sun is directly overhead. At all other locations the slant of the Earth’s surface to the sun’s beam of light lowers the interception intensity. This is a feature of illumination that we observe at both dawn and dusk when our shadows reach their maximum length as the sunlight grazes the surface of the Earth.
The average power intensity at the Earth’s surface is different for each of the three atmospheric cells. The tropical Hadley cells, which occupy 50% of the surface of the Earth, intercept 60.90% of the beam silhouette, and therefore receive the highest radiant beam intensity. The Ferrel cells, which occupy 36.29% of the surface of the Earth, intercept 41.75% of the beam silhouette and therefore receive a lower radiant beam intensity; while the Polar cells, which occupy 8.25% of the surface of the Earth, intercept only 2.81% of the disk silhouette, and therefore receive the lowest average radiant beam power intensity. This quantity of radiant power intensity is defined by the illumination power intensity dilution divisor or “divide by rule” that is specific for each of the three atmospheric cells. This metric is used to constrain the value of the insolation flux used in the modelling process (Figure 3).
The power intensity of the Earth’s average annual irradiance is 1361 W/m2 (Williams, 2019). This flux that arrives at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) is then reduced by the Earth’s planetary Bond albedo of 0.306 (Williams, 2019) which acts as a bypass filter diverting radiant solar energy back out to space. It is only the remaining 69.4% of the radiant flux which is absorbed by the planet, and consequently the value of the solar irradiance that drives the Earth’s climate is reduced to a power intensity of 944.53 W/m2 (Figure 4).
It is fundamental to what comes next that the following aspect of power intensity distribution within the Earth’s climate system is appreciated in its full subtlety and implications. In figure 2 we observed that the planet intercepts sunlight as if it is a planar disk. However, because of the attitude (slant) of the surface of a sphere with respect to the parallel rays within the solar beam, the strength of the beam striking the surface decreases from its maximum possible value post-albedo of 944.53 W/m2 at the solar zenith, down to a value of zero at the terminator, the great circle line of dawn and dusk (Figure 4).
Perhaps the most fundamental issue at the heart of climate modelling is the use of the power intensity illumination divisor of integer 4, that is present in the vacuum planet equation (Equation 1). In this special case divisor 4 is used to dilute the insolation to one quarter of the radiant beam intensity. The original, valid and only purpose of the vacuum planet equation is to establish the radiant exhaust temperature of an illuminated planetary body. Planetary bodies of whatever form are only ever illuminated over the surface of a single hemisphere, so the appropriate divisor required to calculate the average insolation power intensity of the fully lit face of a planet is integer 2.
Furthermore, there will exist on every lit planet a unique location, the solar zenith, at which the radiant power intensity at the base of the atmosphere is exactly equal to the value of the solar irradiance at that planet’s orbital distance from the sun. It should again be appreciated that the power intensity illuminating the planet’s atmosphere at the solar zenith is scaled down by the Bond albedo which acts as a bypass filter. The albedo filter acts by removing insolation from the climate system, and returning this discarded portion of the high-frequency radiant flux directly back to space.
Each of the three atmospheric cells that constitute the circulation system of the Earth’s atmosphere has a distinct set of meteorological parameters of areal extent, average insolation power intensity flux, average annual temperature and adiabatic lapse rate. These parameters are listed in Table 2 and have been used to constrain the adiabatic climate modelling process.
In the previous essay Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus, an alternative mechanism for energy flux recycling was presented, using the process of atmospheric circulation, to demonstrate that convective atmospheric mass motion can be invoked to explain the planetary greenhouse effect. Atmospheric data for both Venus and also Titan, the tidally locked moon of Saturn, shows that there is little or no thermal contrast between the lit daytime and the dark nighttime hemispheres on these slowly rotating worlds. Our studies indicate that when applied to a slowly rotating planet such as Venus, or indeed Titan, the adiabatic model required only a single energy flux partition ratio, common to both the lit and dark sides of the globe, to achieve an appropriate thermal boost within the atmosphere of these bodies.
However, when a single common energy partition ratio was applied to the process of creating an adiabatic model for the Hadley cell on rapidly rotating Earth, the model failed and created an atmosphere in which the tropopause is higher on the unlit dark side of the globe (Table 5, Attempt 0). Clearly this result is in direct contrast to observed atmospheric data, where we find that the convective process on the lit hemisphere produces a tropopause with a higher elevation during the hours of daylight compared to the nighttime. The solution to this failure of the analysis is to apply two distinct and separate energy partition ratios during the process of inverse modelling, one for each side. On the lit side of energy collection, the partition ratio should be biased in favour of the air. However, on the dark side of energy loss, the partition ratio should be biased in favour of the radiant surface of energy loss to space.
The justification for using two distinct energy partition ratios, for the atmospheric circulation cells on rapidly rotating Earth, is based on observation and deduction. The primary observation is that for the Earth atmospheric convection is predominantly a sunlight driven phenomenon. It creates turbulent air motion at the lit surface boundary of the planet, and in the presence of a gravity field turbulent mixing favours energy retention by the air over direct surface radiant energy loss to space.
Contrastingly at night, in the absence of solar radiant loading, the process of surface radiant cooling predominates as the atmosphere stabilises and develops a surface inversion of cold dense air. This near surface vertical profile results in lateral movement of dense air downslope, away from land surface high elevation points of radiantly efficient emission to space. At these points the overlying air preferentially delivers retained and advected daytime acquired energy down onto the now cooler nighttime surface boundary.
In this essay we use the same algorithm to calculate the average annual surface temperature of the Earth that was used in the first essay Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space. The key parameters are the global extent of each of the three meteorological cells of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar, and their respective average annual temperatures. By combining these three temperature values using an area weighted average, the average annual temperature of the whole planet can be derived (Table 3).
2.1.Modelling the Earth’s Hadley cell.
The two planetary Hadley cells, present in the tropics of the northern and southern hemispheres, together occupy 50 % of the surface area of the Earth (Table 3), and in total intercept 60.90% of the light that creates the disk silhouette of the planetary beam shadow (Table 2). Because the surface area of the globe’s lit hemisphere is twice the cross-sectional area of the total disk silhouette, it follows that the power intensity illumination divisor for the Hadley cells has a value of (0.5*2)/0.609 = 1.642 (Table 2). This divisor is then applied to the post-albedo dimmed irradiance to create the Hadley cell specific power intensity flux of 575.22 W/m2. This flux is then in turn used to analyse the process of recycling of the captured solar energy by atmospheric mass motion, within the Earth’s Hadley cell using the adiabatic climate model (Table 4).
The objective of the inverse modelling process used in Table 4 is to establish the daytime convection and nighttime advection pair of energy partition ratios for each of the three atmospheric cells. The inverse modelling process is constrained by the two known parameters of annual average temperature and also the average tropopause height for the energy collection (lit side) of each cell. The process of establishing these partition ratios (daytime and nighttime) for the Earth’s Hadley cell involved a sequence of tuning that required a “see-saw” approach of iterative “nudges” (Table 5).
Starting with a neutral nighttime energy partition ratio of 50% radiant loss to space and 50% thermal retention by the air, the inverse modelling process was run with the objective of establishing the lit surface energy partition ratio that creates a daytime tropopause height of 18 km (Table 5, Attempt 1). This first attempt resulted in an adiabatic model of the Hadley cell with an average annual temperature of 33.75oC, which is warmer than the required average temperature of 27.9oC.
In order to reduce the model temperature to the required value of 27.9oC the inverse modelling process was then repeated, but this time adjusting the nighttime energy partition ratio to achieve an increased energy loss to space from the dark side, thereby reducing the average temperature to the required value (Table 5, Attempt 2). This second attempt produced a modelling result in which the daytime tropopause height of 17.8 km is too low.
This undershoot was then corrected by repeating the search for the lit side energy partition ratio that creates a tropopause height of 18 km (Table 5, Attempt 3). This third attempt to tune the model by increasing the retention of flux into the air on the lit side produces an average annual temperature of 28.25oC, which is still too warm.
The fourth attempt, with its increased nighttime radiant loss to space, cools the return flow of air to the lit side sufficiently to successfully achieve both targets of a lit hemisphere tropopause height of 18 km, and an average annual temperature of 27.9oC (Table 5, Attempt 4).
2.2.Modelling the Earth’s Ferrel cell.
The process of establishing the dual component flux partition ratio for the Ferrel cell adopts the same strategy as that established for the Hadley cell described in Section 2.1.
The two planetary Ferrel cells, present in the temperate zones of the northern and southern hemispheres, together occupy 41.75 % of the surface area of the Earth (Table 3) and in total intercept 36.29% of the light that creates the disk silhouette of the planetary beam shadow (Table 2). Because the surface area of the globe’s lit hemisphere is twice the cross-sectional area of the total disk silhouette, it follows that the power intensity illumination divisor for the Ferrel cells has a value of (0.4175*2)/0.3629 = 2.3008 (Table 2). This divisor is then applied to the post-albedo dimmed irradiance to create the Ferrel cell specific power intensity flux of 410.52 W/m2. This flux is then in turn used to analyse the process of recycling of the captured solar energy by atmospheric mass motion, within the Earth’s Ferrel cell using the adiabatic climate model (Table 6).
As with the Hadley cell model the determination of the parameters for the Ferrel cell starts with a neutral nighttime energy partition ratio of 50% radiant loss to space and 50% thermal retention by the air. The inverse modelling process is then run with the objective of establishing the lit surface energy partition ratio that creates a daytime tropopause height of 13 km, for an average annual cell temperature of 6.5oC. As with the analysis of the Hadley cell, a process of “see-saw” iterations were used to achieve the final pair of partition ratios that satisfy both of these data constraints for the Ferrel cell (Table 7).
2.3.Modelling the Earth’s Polar cell.
The two planetary polar cells together occupy 8.25 % of the surface area of the Earth (Table 3) and in total intercept only 2.81% of the light that creates the disk silhouette of the planetary beam shadow (Table 2). As before, because the surface area of the globe’s lit hemisphere is twice the cross-sectional area of the total disk silhouette, it follows that the power intensity illumination divisor for the Polar cells has a value of (0.0825*2)/0.0281 = 5.874 (Table 2). When this divisor is applied to the silhouette of the post-albedo dimmed irradiance it creates the Polar cell specific power intensity flux of 160.81 W/m2.
Modelling tests established that this power intensity can be used to create an average annual Polar cell temperature of minus 20oC (Table 8).
The stable value that results from this initial test, and presented in Table 9 achieves an average annual temperature of minus 20oC for the Polar cell. However, the range of minimum average air temperature from minus 7.6oC for the summer to minus 32.9oC for the winter is actually too small to account for the known winter extrema air temperatures observed in polar regions. For example, air temperatures of lower than minus 50oC for July were recorded during advected katabatic storms at the Little America exploration base, on the ice edge of the Ross Sea in Antarctica (Rubin, 1953; Figure 2).
Modern icecap temperature data recorded for Antarctica regularly reach values of minus 70oC in winter (Figure 5: Dome Argus), and so an alternative modelling strategy was devised to account for these extreme temperature values recorded for winter in polar regions.
The key difference between the polar cells and the two other atmospheric cells present in the Earth’s atmosphere, is that in summer the high latitude polar regions experience months of continuous daylight. The effect of continuous daylight is that any atmospheric convective activity that results in vertical overturning in the Polar cell returns air back onto a lit surface. This return of air onto the illuminated surface effectively short circuits the surface energy partition process, and delivers an energy flux boost directly back to the lit summer Polar cell environment.
By contrast, during their respective winter season, each Polar cell experiences months of continuous darkness and there is no direct input of radiant solar energy. Consequently, all of the energy flux experienced by the cells throughout the months of continuous darkness is a direct result of advected air transported into the polar environment from the abutting Ferrel cell.
In order to address the dichotomy of continuous summer illumination and continuous winter darkness, the design of the adiabatic model of the Polar cell was altered to incorporate the convective feedback process of summer, and also the advected process of winter into two separate modelling streams. For the purposes of this analysis, and as merely a scoping proposal, the average Polar cell summer temperature is assumed to be plus 5oC, and the average winter temperature is assumed to be minus 45oC. These two separate seasonal values combine to create the required average annual temperature for the Polar cell of minus 20oC (Table 10).
We have now completed the individual modelling process for each of the three atmospheric cells. (See Mulholland, 2019a. Earth Adiabatic Parallel Model 20Jun19 Excel Workbook for full details of the Inverse Modelling Workflows).
3. Discussion of the Modelling Results.
The triple cell parallel adiabatic model of Earth’s climate is tuned to produce the expected value of the average annual atmospheric temperature of 288 Kelvin (15oC) using the previously established method of weighted area to determine the average annual temperature of the Earth (Table 3).
The results of the inverse modelling process demonstrate that to achieve a stable average air temperature and also an appropriate cell specific tropopause height, solar energy must be preferentially retained in the climate system by the air over the lit portion of the Earth’s surface (Table 11). Retention in favour of the air occurs because convection at the solar heated surface boundary is a turbulent process. In the presence of a gravity field solar heated air ascends by buoyancy displacement which removes it from contact with the ground. Because the solid ground surface of a planet is the primary low-frequency radiator, ascending air becomes decoupled from this surface and so retains its energy internally as it rises.
Thermal radiant exhaust of energy to space is the primary control on the ambient atmospheric temperature. Even under conditions of reduced atmospheric opacity, the ground surface radiator of the Earth continues to operate through the Infrared Window, first identified as a critical component of atmospheric radiant energy transmission by G.C. Simpson (1928).
Under conditions of zero solar radiant loading, either at night or during the polar winter, the ground surface radiator continues to operate through the atmospheric infrared window. The nighttime is an environment of energy deficit, 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.
The Antarctic winter temperature inversion profile (Figure 5) is a direct consequence of thermal equilibrium being established and maintained by the process of surface radiative cooling. This cooling is caused by direct radiative energy loss to space through the dry transparent atmosphere above the Antarctic icecap. The radiative process results in the development and maintenance of a surface air temperature inversion. Under these conditions the atmosphere delivers energy to the ground surface radiator, and consequently the energy partition ratio for the winter polar cell is heavily weighted in favour of radiant energy loss to space (Table 11).
3.1 Studying the Effects of Energy Flux Variations within the Adiabatic Model.
In conducting the modelling analysis presented here the key question that must be addressed is this. What is the justification for using energy partition ratio as the basis for determining the average annual temperature of the Earth?
There are three fundamental physical parameters that underpin our modelling process which relate directly to planetary climate, these are: –
1. Global Atmospheric Temperature.
2. Global Atmospheric Pressure.
3. Global Atmospheric Volume.
We have already demonstrated that if we know the areal weighting of the three atmospheric cells, their respective tropopause heights, their TOA temperatures and also respective lapse rates, then the global average temperature of the planetary atmosphere can be calculated. We also know that the average pressure of the atmosphere can be determined by measurement and is common across all three cells, so the remaining issue is the determination of the planetary atmospheric volume.
If we assume that the tropopause is a pressure related phenomenon, and that the 100 mb pressure marks the upper limit of the troposphere (Robinson and Catling, 2014), then the question of applying Boyle’s Law to the total planetary atmosphere potentially has merit and requires investigation. The key objection that the Boyle’s Law relationship relates only to a confined volume of gas assumes that planetary atmospheres are completely unconfined. Clearly this is not strictly true, the total surface area of the Earth does not change, the total mass of the atmosphere, and therefore its pressure is also a fixed quantity.
So, in the presence of a gravity field that binds the atmosphere to the planet it follows that the volume change we observe associated with a change in tropospheric height for each atmospheric cell must be related to the temperature of that cell. Consequently, we can study the planetary atmosphere in total by treating it as a single gravity confined entity with measurable parameters of temperature, pressure and volume.
In order to test the relationship between atmospheric temperature, pressures and volume, a simple single hemisphere adiabatic model was created with an illumination intensity dilution divisor of integer 2. This model is assumed to have simple diabatic radiative cooling from the dark unlit hemisphere, and so a constant partition ratio of 50% radiant energy loss to space and 50% retention by the air was applied to this part of the model (Table 12).
The energy flux within the model was then adjusted by varying the Bond albedo. For each increment of Albedo related radiant power intensity, the inverse modelling process was run to determine the lit surface energy partition ratio that restored the global atmospheric temperature back to a constant value of 15oC.
Because we are now adjusting the Bond albedo, the power intensity flux in our simple model varies from a maximum case of 680.5 W/m2 [1361/2*(1-0.0)] for a totally absorptive Earth (albedo = 0.0), down to a lower limit of 272.2 W/m2, [1361/2*(1-0.60)] for a bright reflective Earth (albedo = 0.60). The power intensity flux lower limit of 272.2 W/m2 occurs because below this value it is impossible for the model Earth to maintain an average annual temperature of 15oC if it becomes any brighter.
The results of these tests are shown in Figure 6.
Using data from the American Vacuum Society (AVS) the temperature and pressure profiles for the average atmosphere are shown in Figures 7 and 8. These data show that for a standard Earth atmosphere and a tropopause defined as occurring at a pressure of 100 mbar (Figure 7) then the average elevation of this pressure is at a height of 16 km (Figure 8).
Starting with a biased surface datum of minus 50 km, the calculated pressure versus height relationship for the Earth’s standard atmosphere (Figure 8) was extended downwards to create a model high pressure atmosphere using an exponential pressure altitude equation (Km versus mbars):-
Equation 2: Pressure =1060.9*EXP(-0.146*C2) mbar
Where C2 is the Datumed Biased Altitude in kilometres.
Equation 2 is constructed to create the standard atmospheric pressure of 1013 mbar at the reference zero altitude of the Earth’s surface under current atmospheric conditions.
For Equation 2 negative altitudes relate to higher than ambient surface pressures, while positive altitudes relate to lower than ambient pressures. The calculated pressures range from a high pressure state for a model atmosphere thickness of 68 km (equation biased altitude of minus 50 km), down to a low pressure state for a model atmosphere thickness of 5.66 km (equation biased altitude of plus 13 km). (See Mulholland, 2019b. Earth Adiabatic PVT Model 20Jun19 Excel Workbook for full details of the Biased Pressure versus Altitude algorithms and tables).
Using a model specific wet adiabatic lapse rate of 3.8 K/km for the lit side of the single cell model, the atmosphere “thickness” records a low of 5.66 km for the high solar energy input case, with a commensurate balancing high radiant energy loss to space. The maximum value of 68 km of atmospheric thickness is achieved for the low solar energy input case, and commensurate balancing low radiant energy loss to space (Figure 6). There is therefore a clear relationship between solar energy input and immediate energy shedding to space by the lit surface. This energy shedding is required to maintain the constant modelled average global temperature of 15oC, and is a pressure dependent effect (Figure 9).
In Figure 9 we see the effective pressure dependent limits under which an Earth with an average planetary temperature of 15oC can exist for a given range of radiant energy loadings at its current orbital distance from the Sun. With the high albedo, (low energy capture) thick atmosphere end-member of the model we are effectively simulating a low temperature version of the atmosphere of the planet Venus.
4. Conclusions and Observations.
1. By creating a dual surface climate model, with one daylit surface of energy surplus and a second dark night surface of energy deficit, we can apply two separate energy partition ratios to these two distinct environments, and study the impacts of these ratios on energy retention and distribution within the model.
2. By assuming that the daytime environment on Earth is dominated by adiabatic convection and has an energy partition ratio weighted in favour of the air, we can account for the process of atmospheric uplift and energy retention by the air.
3. By assuming that the nighttime environment on Earth is dominated by radiative cooling, and has an energy partition ratio weighted in favour of radiant loss to space, we can account for the standard nighttime air temperature profile, and the development of surface temperature inversions in air.
4. By applying a process of inverse modelling, we can establish the values of the energy partition ratio for the Earth’s lit daytime and dark nighttime environments. It is this daytime energy retention in favour of the air that creates the climatic thermal enhancement observed on Earth.
5. By using the appropriate adiabatic lapse rate for each cell, our inverse modelling process can be tuned to replicate the expected tropopause height for the Earth’s tropical Hadley Cell of energy surplus, that of the temperate Ferrel cell, and also the height for the Earth’s Polar Cell of energy deficit.
6. By constructing a simple single lit hemisphere adiabatic model, the range of energy partition ratios required to maintain a constant whole Earth temperature under various solar radiation loadings can be explored. Using an extrapolated pressure altitude equation, the relationship between the energy partition ratio for the lit surface of energy collection and confining atmospheric pressure can be established.
7. Convection efficiency is a pressure related phenomenon. High pressure gaseous environments are more efficient at removing energy from a solar heated surface in the presence of a confining gravity field.
8. Our modelling studies suggest that the opacity of the atmosphere fundamentally controls the height of the radiant emission surface that vents energy to space (as per Robinson and Catling, 2014). However, there is no requirement for opacity to be an atmospheric energy amplifier via radiative feed-back contra Kiehl and Trenberth, (1997).
Our fundamental criticisms of the standard radiative climate model currently used by climate science are as follows: –
First, all materials heat and cool diabatically (laminar exchange of energy through the surface interface), solids do not change position when they heat. Gaseous atmospheres not only heat and cool diabatically, but in addition air also heats adiabatically, which is a turbulent process of energy acquisition, as a critical part of daytime surface heating.
Second, it is physically impossible to lose potential energy by radiant thermal emission. Atmospheric adiabatic energy transport is a meteorological process that delivers energy, without any transport loss, to a distant surface that is itself undergoing diabatic cooling by radiant thermal emission to space.
We have designed our climate model to retain the critical dual surface element of a lit globe, namely night and day. The standard climate model is a single surface model that does not include adiabatic energy transfer, because diabatic thermal equilibrium is assumed at all times (both night and day). When in our model we apply the missing element of adiabatic energy transfer from the lit side, by using distinct and separate energy partition ratios for night and day, then the requirement for back radiation greenhouse gas heating is no longer necessary.
We are able to quantify the degree of adiabatic lit surface energy partition in favour of the air by using the process of inverse modelling, a standard geoscience mathematical technique. The issue of atmospheric opacity then becomes a passive process, and the purported atmospheric action of greenhouse heating by back-radiation can be discounted. We believe that our modelling work presented here should lead to a fundamental reassessment of the atmospheric processes relating to energy partition, retention and flow within the Earth’s climate system.
5. Acknowledgement.
We would like to thank Anthony Watts for allowing us to use the platform of his blog to present our ideas to a wide audience. We believe that science is about exploring ideas and by providing us with this forum we are able to test the validity of our approach to the complex field of climate modelling.
6. References.
American Vacuum Society (AVS) Atmospheric Pressure at Different Altitudes.
Australian Antarctic Division: Dome Argus.
Beal, A., 2011. The Surface Area of a Sphere Between Parallel Planes. Online Blog.
Kiehl, J.T and Trenberth, K.E., 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 78 (2),. pp. 197-208.
Mulholland, P., 2019a. Earth Adiabatic Parallel Model 20Jun19 Excel Workbook.
Mulholland, P., 2019b. Earth Adiabatic PVT Model 20Jun19 Excel Workbook.
Robinson, T.D. and Catling, D.C., 2014. Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), pp. 12-15.
Rubin, M.J., 1953. Seasonal variations of the Antarctic tropopause. Journal of Meteorology, 10(2), pp.127-134.
Sagan, C. and Chyba, C., 1997. The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases. Science, 276(5316), pp. 1217–1221.
Simpson, G.C., 1928. Some Studies in Terrestrial Radiation. Royal Meteorological Society (London) Memoir, Vol II. No. 16, pp. 69-95.
Williams, D.R., 2019. Earth Fact Sheet. NASA NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are three basic arguments in the great climate change/global warming debate.
What it does.
Bickering over the alleged global warming symptoms allegedly caused by mankind’s evil carbon dioxide, i.e. melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme weather and a plethora of other apocalyptic hallucinations. Refuting these speculative, baseless, fact-free fears with actual observed data proving natural variations fails since these delusions are nothing more than articles of faith, voices in heads and monsters under beds.
How it works.
Unsettled quasi-scientific bickering over details about the mechanism behind the undeniable Radiative GreenHouse Effect, i.e. 1. the atmosphere warms the earth, 2. warming produced by an upwelling/downwelling/”back” perpetual and divinely balanced GHG LWIR energy loop, 3. which is powered by a calculated theoretical “what if” ideal S-B BB LWIR energy upwelling from the surface. Entire RGHE theory is nothing but thermodynamic rubbish!!!
Does it even exist.
Whether the greenhouse effect is even real. By reflecting 30% of the incoming solar radiation the atmosphere actually cools the earth much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield. Without an atmosphere the earth would receive 25% to 40% more kJ/h and get warmer becoming much like the barren lunar surface, blazing hot lit side, deep cold dark side, a total refutation of RGHE theory which claims just the opposite.
No greenhouse effect, no greenhouse gases, no man caused climate change or global warming.
“Whether the greenhouse effect is even real. By reflecting 30% of the incoming solar radiation the atmosphere actually cools the earth much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield. Without an atmosphere the earth would receive 25% to 40% more kJ/h and get warmer becoming much like the barren lunar surface, blazing hot lit side, deep cold dark side, a total refutation of RGHE theory which claims just the opposite.”
I’m not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. But it seems you’ve refuted your own claim here. Because the Earth doesn’t get nearly as hot as the Moon on the lit side, and not nearly as cold on the dark side, seems to prove that the atmosphere acts as a blanket, keeping a certain amount of warmth in at all times, and a certain amount out.
But I’m just some guy…
Jeff Alberts
One Lunar Day is about 28 Earth Days, the sun shines for about two Earth weeks, then in the dark for about 2 Earth weeks.
Do you think that if the moon rotated at the same speed as the Earth that it would be the same temperature as the Earth?
The blanket analogy fails, because a blanket controls convection of air, and this is not the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is about radiation. The means by which Earth’s atmosphere regulates temperature is different than a blanket.
But the atmosphere does regulate temperature. Whether a blanket analogy fails or not isn’t the point.
The ocean is the elephant in the room, atmosphere is only his tail.
The weight of the atmosphere determines the amount of energy that the oceans can hold.
And that amount would be 1000 to 1, ocean over atmosphere.
And how much temperature moderation is simply due to the fact that the Earth rotates about 28 times as fast as the moon and there fore any given point on it has that much less time to heat up during the day and similarly less time to cool off at night?
Glad you quote Richard Feynman on this post.
Here is another article which uses his wisdom.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Cheers
Roger
This essay is #4 in a series on WUWT studying planetary climate modelling.
#1. Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space, deals with thermal (low frequency) radiant emission to space and shows how to generate an average temperature for the Earth using the meteorological data of areal extent, tropopause height, lapse rate and tropopause temperature for the 3 main atmospheric cells (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar).
#2. An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget, discusses the mechanism by which the current climate science paradigm, which uses atmospheric power intensity flux recycling in the form of back-radiation, accounts for the currently observed average temperature of the Earth.
I show how the Vacuum Planet equation can be replicated using an Excel spreadsheet containing a cascade of descending fractions which tend to a stable value finite limit sum, and that by using a diabatic (50:50) power intensity flux partition ratio there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect.
#3. Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus, presented an alternative climate model, using the process of atmospheric circulation on a hypothetical tidally locked planet, to demonstrate that convective atmospheric mass motion recycling can be invoked to explain the greenhouse effect.
The Excel workbooks contain examples of diabatic (50:50) and adiabatic (Lit surface Air Thermal Retention > Lit surface Radiant Emission Loss) climate models which are all based on versions of summing a geometric series of descending fractions.
The diabatic model contains two infinite series (one for each hemisphere).
The geometric series for the lit side energy loss to space is: –
Lit side Series: 1/2 +1/8 + 1/32 + 1/128 …. + 2-n (odd) = 2/3
While the geometric series for the dark side energy loss to space is: –
Dark side Series: 1/4 +1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 …. + 2-n (even) = 1/3
(Note that the aggregate sum for the limits of both series is 1, and that the gain of this diabatic model is therefore 2). See Figure 3 in the Noonworld essay.
In order to increase the gain in the model (and thereby heat the atmosphere) it is necessary to bias the partition ratio on the lit side in favour of the air. This bias results in a new geometric series which tends to a higher (but still finite) limit.
The concept we are studying is this: –
Forced convection is a pressure related phenomenon. The higher the atmospheric pressure at the ground surface (the place where insolation gets converted into thermal energy) the more energy is captured by the air. This is basic heat engine physics, run your engine at high pressure for high conversion efficiencies.
The Excel spreadsheet is designed to interlink TOA Irradiance, Planetary Bond albedo, atmospheric pressure, adiabatic lapse rate and average temperature.
We are in essence studying a Pressure Volume Temperature relationship for planetary atmospheres.
The Excel spread sheet is built with a cascaded series of interlocking calculations that tend towards the limit sum with increasing precision. The greater the partition ratio in favour of the air, the longer the cycling needs to be in the Excel spreadsheet to establish the finite series limit sum by iteration.
When I first built the spreadsheet, I was amazed to find the incredible power of the Excel Data “What if Analysis” “Goal Seek” Tool. This tool allows me to perform inverse modelling by which the partition ratio (pressure proxy) can be adjusted in the adiabatic model to give the required model gain that creates the required greenhouse temperature effect.
With the “Goal Seek” Tool we can also study how energy input, albedo and pressure combine to produce a stable thermal output (a constant global temperature).
In essence the model allows me to explore numerous planetary scenarios. For example: –
The impact of daily rotation rate on Hadley cell latitudinal reach; e.g. slowly rotating Venus and Titan which both lack a Ferrel cell, versus rapidly rotating Earth and Mars which both have one.
The limits of the solar system Goldilocks’ Zone for different planetary orbits and planet mass.
The model also allows me to study how the Venusian atmosphere changes via out-gassing of carbon dioxide gas from the planet’s mantle with geologic time. The model shows how the early water oceans of Venus boil away into Space as atmospheric pressure rises. With increasing gas pressure Venus converts from a world with a low pressure, water ice albedo and low temperature atmosphere into the modern Venus, with its high pressure, Sulphuric acid ice albedo and high temperature atmosphere.
Compliments on innovative explorations.
Can you model be validated vs others by comparing against accurate surface pressure variations with latitude?
PS For your next iteration, recommend correcting the assumption: “the total mass of the atmosphere, and therefore its pressure is also a fixed quantity”.
The mass varies with H2O and CO2. Mean elevation of the center of mass of the atmosphere varies average temperature and thus with with solar insolation and the solar cycle. Varying this mean elevation – distance to earth’s center – will vary the gravitational attraction and thus the surface pressure. That could be measured with ppm or better accurate pressure sensors.
David,
Thanks for the compliment.
“Can you model be validated vs others by comparing against accurate surface pressure variations with latitude?”
This is a good question and needs accurate data to study this point further.
“The mass varies with H2O and CO2.”
Water yes, but it is a condensing volatile. CO2 not so much, as clearly each molecule of CO2 created by carbon combustion / respiration is replacing a molecule of oxygen, so the gas molecular weight increases by 12 from 32 to 44.
The issue of water mass in the atmosphere is one that puzzles me.
Water with its molecular weight of 18 is a light molecule, hence moist air is buoyant.
Water in the form of rain or snow falling onto a mountain top at high elevation possess potential energy. All of the energy released by descending flowing water drives the planet’s hydrological and sedimentary transport processes.
Rainwater on reaching the surface imposes extra weight onto the ground (landslides triggered by extra soil moisture for example). So, at what point is the extra pressure of the mass of falling water experienced by the ground? Only at the time of impact? If so then this turns water presence into a question of momentum transfer onto the surface at impact, rather than that of static force.
Philip
Good point on effective increase from CO2.
Re H2O. Yes those are challenging counter phenomena with water.
As Richard Feynman summarized “First we guess”. For clues to your questions, how about:
“the change in pressure between the rising versus descending portions of the three cells (compared to their mid points on either side), relative to latitudinal trends”?
Ah, yet people keep forgetting hydrogen bonding …. so water in the atmosphere isn’t just monomers. It is also dimers, trimers, tetramers, etc. all the way up to 100 micron droplets suspended in it.
Then there is the kinetic energy. For gases at Earth surface conditions, they’re moving at approximately 1km/sec (nitrogen) through space. Water monomers would move somewhat faster, dimers a bit slower, comparable to oxygen. The rms difference would be about the square root of the mass ratio. In real life, though, the actual kinetic energy (mostly velocity) of any given atom or molecule can and does vary, so “heavy” carbon dioxide molecule A can be moving faster than water molecule B. The rising/sinking analogy has issues when talking about gases. One of the defining characteristics of gases is that they will fully mix if/when unimpeded.
Philip Mulholland
The Bond albedo is appropriate for a diffuse reflector like the moon. However, 71% of the Earth is covered by water, which reflects specularly, and only provides retro-reflection with the sun at zenith. Therefore, the Bond albedo is a lower bound for the total reflectivity for Earth.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
“Therefore, the Bond albedo is a lower bound for the total reflectivity for Earth”
Clyde,
Thanks for the link to your work. At this point I am trying to match the established modelling process, but the issue of determining albedo is clearly a highly complex specialism.
Albedo is a function of the surface areal distribution of at least the following:-
1. Reflective Clouds
2. Reflective Ice
3. Reflective Land
4. Absorptive Vegetation
5. Absorptive Water
6. Something else I have missed.
The latitudinal distribution of these elements and seasonal changes mean that for the complex dynamic of Earth’s climate a single constant number approach is just the starting point.
Philip,
Truly just a starting point! Nominally diffuse reflectors like vegetation, sand, and snow, actually have a unique bi-directional reflectance distribution function that describes how light is reflected in the upward hemisphere. All of them tend to have a strong forward reflectance lobe. That means, trying to measure just the albedo will miss the light that is scattered or reflected in the forward direction. Because snow is composed of platelets, instead of approximately round grains like sand, it tends to have a strong forward scattering that increases as the snow is compacted. To further complicate things, scattering is dependent on the angle of incidence of sunlight, the complex refractive index, particle size, and the structure of the components . Leaves have a cellulose substrate, internal chemicals such as chlorophyll, a waxy coating, and dew or raindrops on the leaves, and many plants will orient their leaves to either optimize or minimize the solar insolation, depending on the climate and plant. Climatologists are a long way from doing anything more than plugging in a crude approximation to the interaction between plants and sunlight.
Clouds probably come as close to a true Lambertian reflector as anything on Earth. For them, albedo is a good measure. However, for almost everything else albedo is a lower bound.
However, the important point is that the Holy Grail of a single number is probably an underestimate if measurements of the back reflectance are primarily relied upon.
For articles like this, it would be nice to have a link at the top that would take you down to the comments. Especially since every time you post a response, you get taken back to the top of the article.
And then there is the sun: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.pdf
Wow — impressive. But be ready for a massive dissing by “modellers”, because y’all are intruding into their private, sacred bailiwick.
I spent years doing data modeling of Businesses, part of the process for Oracle RDBM migration. The one thing that was a must: A working system to decompose into logical processes, all existing data and processes were validated before a line of code was ever written.
Seems to me that the ‘climate modelers’ are throwing spaghetti at a wall seeing what sticks while getting funding to buy more spaghetti.
Can I get a copy of this from somewhere? Why not post it on SSRN as a work in progress paper? Or ANO?
Brian,
I have published a preprint copy on Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334067825_Return_to_Earth
What is also odd is that the RSS feed ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/feed/ ) displays comments that do not yet appear in the comments section.
So you’re saying that most of the energy in the atmosphere is in the form of kinetic energy, that energy didn’t come from absorbing IR emissions from the surface, and that this kinetic energy feeds back to the surface when the surface is has a lower temperature than the atmosphere. It’s refreshing to see logical science every once in a while.
Robert,
Most of the energy in the atmosphere is in the form of potential energy which cannot be radiated to space.
It comes from transforming KE to PE at the sunlit surface which reduces radiation to space on the lit side and it gets back to the surface as KE under descending columns which is then quickly extracted from the air by the radiatively cooling surface so as to increase radiation to space on the unlit side.
The two processes cancel out within a single convective overturning cycle BUT the delay in radiative emission to space caused by the overturning cycle accumulates additional energy within the system which heats the surface above S-B without any need for greenhouse gases.
Very true, I should have been more specific and stated that most of the energy is KE at the atmosphere-surface boundary – I was just considering the actual thermal flux between surface and atmosphere.
Anyone that disputes this theory needs to explain how an atmosphere with pure N2 would not also heat the planet surface below. I’ve began to suspect that many people here don’t even realize that the “consensus hypothesis” completely ignores many basic physical laws.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html
https://www.mvsengineering.com/files/Subsurface-Book/MVS-SVE_Chapter02.pdf
Radiative emission influence on surface temperature is less important than the angular momentum of an asteroid. Hint: not very important at all.
A very readable article, which say one thing loudly: the authors understand their subject matter and can explain its salient points with ease. Thank you.
No government has the ability to determine what is good for the people. The people have the right to determine what the government should do to take care of the people and their own interests. Scientific principles are well beyond the understanding of the average politician.
Intersting summary but is this not just a different simplification of the complex climate, earth’s surface, oceans, orbit, and atmosphere which does not allow by itself to explain or predict shifts in local weather changes and trends to the degree C of F or K any more than the established climate models do?
Alexander,
It is not intended to do that though one can use the basic model to calculate the effects of altering one or more climate variables.
The essential point is that the greenhouse effect is caused by atmospheric mass convecting up and down in a gravity field so as to delay loss of some radiation to space and thereby heat the surface above S-B.
It invalidates the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect comprehensively.
Climate modelling requires a completely fresh start.
Yes it’s a different simplification, but the proper starting point for more complex analyses.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
”The essential point is that the greenhouse effect is caused by atmospheric mass convecting up and down in a gravity field so as to delay loss of some radiation to space and thereby heat the surface above S-B.”
That essential “point” is only imaginative, is not observed. Or point to the observation folks. And the surface is NOT above S-B the global surface near surface mean air temperature is equal to S-B & so is the local T, this is easily observed with an inexpensive IR thermometer.
Stephen has always simply imagined rising columns of air being replaced by descending columns. That process is not observed in the actual Earth system, there are no organized descending columns observed.
Hi-lo pressure systems on a global avg. cancel each other for no surface temperature effect. In low pressure local system, the rising air cools due expansion from lowering pressure; lowering air to higher pressure in local systems just as equally warms (this is why it’s called adiabatic process). No net effect on global surface mean T from any global adiabatic process – by definition. The standard atm. lapse rate results from these global equator-to-midlatitude processes being averaged by 1,000s of local soundings.
Observations of convection (lab and in the wild) show rising air (or fluid) columns are replaced laterally at the surface by air/fluid at the same surface temperature flowing in, this is observed in the atm. as laterally windy days (geostrophic windiness). No net effect on global mean surface temperature.
The air that has “risen” mostly stays aloft at its new T and P spreading laterally when observed in the wild (storm cloud tops cauliflower out, they do not roll over and quickly descend to the surface as do Stephen’s imagined columns). They follow the Hadley cell et. al. ambient circulation to distant regions.
As Robert W Turner implied 11:51am, the top post also needs to explain an N2 atmosphere surface temperature or any solar system object or exoplanet atm. with a different surface pressure, grey opacity composition. After reading through it, I doubt this can be done while it is routinely performed with LBLRTM radiative-convective atm. codes.
However, give the authors a chance to show their method can determine Earth global mean surface temperature using the top post methods for say near transparent 100% N2,O2 or more near transparent 100% N2 1bar surface earth atm.
“Stephen has always simply imagined rising columns of air being replaced by descending columns. That process is not observed in the actual Earth system, there are no organized descending columns observed.”
The descending legs of the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells in the troposphere and of the Brewer-Dobson circulation in the stratosphere are well documented.
What goes up must come down.
Yes Stephen, what convects up somewhere in a well define observed column is replaced laterally with fluid at same temperature, comes down in no defined column over wide regions somewhere else adiabatically replacing fluid at the local ambient, no global surface mean temperature change from the Hadley Cell et. al similar processes as they do not burn a fuel. These processes occur at local ambient moving existing thermodynamic internal energy around in the system thus neither increasing nor decreasing that energy nor mean surface T which is what is meant by adiabatic.
This is science denial level 11 lol.
No observations of downwelling legs of the global convective cells? Please do yourself a favor and look up “horse latitudes”.
“Please do yourself a favor and look up “horse latitudes”.”
Robert,
Quite so. Cloud Streets are a well-defined atmospheric structure of horizontal rolls of counter-rotating air organised in cells that are oriented approximately parallel to the ground in the 1 to 2 km thick planetary boundary layer.
see Horizontal convective rolls.
Now apply the principle of scale invariance to this organised overturning process and move up to troposphere size using the convective storms of the Intertropical Convergence Zone as the driving mechanism. The descending limb is of this mega-structure, which we call the Hadley cell, are the organised surface anticyclones of the Horse latitudes.
”No observations of downwelling legs of the global convective cells?”
Sure plenty of legs. And descending ambient air regions – deserts for example.
There are no descending columns as Stephen writes though, just ascending convective columns. Watch a video of convection in the atm. or in any fluid. Learn the difference between what Stephen writes imagining what happens and what actually happens in global convective cells and the “horse latitudes”.
“There are no descending columns as Stephen writes though”.
You are engaged in hair splitting there Trick. I suppose you have that to hang on to.
Eric, it is not hair splitting. Stephen relies on his imagined descending local columns to adiabatically heat the surface from the compression to warm air above global Tmean 255K to 288K so that “back radiation greenhouse gas heating is no longer necessary” after his first cycle of the rising of the atm. off the ground.
It’s a real problem for Stephen when the columns are not ever observed doing so in the lab or in the field. The general circulation IS observed and that is observed to occur at ambient.
The rising columns are easily observed & above ambient T as long as they rise, once they equilibrate to surroundings they stop rising and cauliflower out, they do not immediately descend and restart the cycle as Stephen writes. The air at the surface was replaced with ambient air not descending compressed air as in Stephen’s imaginary world. For adiabatic heating of the atm. or any gas you need a piston and cylinder which do not inhabit the atm.
This is all covered in papers of the 1950s (Lorenz) and 1960s radiative-convective atm. reports of Manabe et. al. if you want to learn the basics of meteorology. The field went on to be able to use those principles to reasonably estimate the atm. surface temperature of Venus before it was measured. The field is well established, the top post needs to use the basic principles in the field to be at all relevant in modern times.
Well the top post refers exclusively to the large scale Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells and not local uplift and descent.
As regards local phenomena it is the case that each discrete area of uplift is surrounded by areas of descent so either way Trick is guilty of a disingenuous attempt to save face.
He is a dishonest Troll who should be ignored.
”As regards local phenomena it is the case that each discrete area of uplift is surrounded by areas of descent”
LARGE areas, now you have better worded it Stephen. Large regions of descending dryer air under which huge deserts are found. That description is what is observed. The Hadley cells et. al. large scale general circulation occurs at ambient so no adiabatic heating is observed, despite years of meteorological observations, the needed pistons and cylinders have never been reported.
This sort of debate is quite obviously painful for Stephen (who lashes out) but it shouldn’t be as it is a necessary part of top post: “We believe that science is about exploring ideas and by providing us with this forum we are able to test the validity of our approach to the complex field of climate modelling.”
It’s remarkable that all three Apollo 8 astronauts are still with us:
https://time.com/5475697/apollo-8-50-years-later/
The trouble with the amplifier concept is that amplifiers conventionally have power supplies. In physics there are explanations of mechanisms that limit energy flow and, conventionally, they don’t invoke feedback or any kind of amplification. Counter EMF is an example. Ohm’s Law is another example. There is also a heat equivalent for Ohm’s Law. link
Amplification and feedback are deeply flawed and unnecessary analogies.
Having supplied an alternative source of surface heating it is legitimate for readers to ask what effect there is from back radiation.
Faster convection lowers the effective emission height whereas slower convection allows it to rise.
The effective emission height is set by the length of time it takes for a single cycle of convective overturning.
One can verify that by noting that if the overturning cycle were instantaneous the emission height would be at the surface as for radiation whereas if convection stopped completely it would be at the top of atmosphere as for a solid.
Everything turns on the speed of convection and nothing else.
So, back radiation adds energy to the surface which accelerates convection which reduces the effective emissions height which causes a planet to radiate from a lower, warmer height which neutralises the surface warming effect of back radiation.
Neat, isn’t it ?
It follows that the denser an atmosphere and the more viscous it becomes, the slower convection runs, the higher and colder the effective emission height becomes and the hotter the surface becomes.
Hence a hot Venus with a high density thick atmosphere with a high effective emission height and a cold Mars with a low density thin atmosphere with a low effective emission height.
Conventionally the back radiation is included with the overall R-Value for the system. example The back radiation is proportional to the forward radiation so the effect on energy flux is linear. ie. the result can be treated the same as straight conduction (or thermal resistance).
It doesn’t work like physical insulation at all.
1. Insulation is a solid. It blocks 100% of IR and visible light.
2. Insulation blocks convection.
3. R-value applies to a stationary 2-D solid surface, convection complicates this.
Does CO2 not have a lower R-value than bulk air? It has a higher emissivity.
The lapse rate(s) determines when convection will kick in. Before that point, we just have radiation and conduction. They can be treated separately but air is a poor conductor so conduction can almost be ignored. The back radiation acts to decrease the net energy radiated from the surface.
Convection moves heat up the atmosphere toward outer space very efficiently so, once it kicks in, the planet sheds a lot more heat. That’s why the first approximation to a rocky planet’s surface temperature is determined by the lapse rate and density of its atmosphere.
Here is an important statement from a paper you should read and understand.
“Of course, it may be that even if the oversimplified picture entertained in IPCC global
climatology is physically incorrect, a thorough discussion may reveal a non-neglible influence of
certain radiative effects (apart from sunlight) on the weather, and hence on its local averages,
the climates, which may be dubbed the CO2 greenhouse effect. But then three key questions
will remain, even if the effect is claimed to serve only as a genuine trigger of a network of
complex reactions:
1. Is there a fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?
2. If so, what is the fundamental physical principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect?
3. Is it physically correct to consider radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism
controlling the weather setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?
The aim of this paper is to give an affirmative negative answer to all of these questions
rendering them rhetoric.”
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
In my mind, question 3 is the critical one. Once you realize that radiative heat transfer within the atmosphere is a bit player, then questions 1 and 2 are moot. You can’t talk about energy balances and movement of energy within a gas without taking into account Pressure and Volume as well as convection. And you can’t get rid these factors by simply asserting that all the highs and lows (or rising and falling air columns) all “cancel out in average.” Sure they do over long time periods, but changes in such a large volume of gas such as a planetary atmosphere take time, so there is hysteresis in the system and large amounts of energy can and is moved when things are out of balance. You can’t understand this system without taking all this into account because of the amount of energy involved.
Yet we still see the same sophistry, i.e. “The lapse rate(s) determines when convection will kick in.” “Hi-lo pressure systems on a global avg. cancel each other for no surface temperature effect.”, etcetera on every single one of these heat budget posts. They never actually read any of the papers.
Well, in spite of Feynman, it will take an Executive Science Panel under Dr. Happer to sort out this mess.
And a crash program like the Manhatten Project for fusion is urgently required with real government funding.
Going back to the Moon should not be left to private billionaires – I wonder which astronaut will sign up for a Dragon or Blue Orion capsule (one way) trip?
bonbon
If any readers could help to get this onto Dr Happer’s overloaded desk I would be most appreciative.
This is exactly what he needs to validate his existing position on the climate change controversy.
A Manhattan project for fusion is almost guaranteed to fail. Scientific breakthroughs don’t happen on demand, they are mostly serendipitous. link Any attempt to manage the such breakthroughs will actually reduce their likelihood.
Gonna take some time to absorb, re-read, and understand this long post. The biggest problem I see is it is strictly the atmospheric parts of climate. Yet the vast deep cold oceans are where the thermal stability of Earth’s climate lies. The blue-water world space photos at the lead-in of this post demonstrates that nicely. We are land-dwelling inhabitants of a water world, and we seem to forget that frequently with cartoon models depictions of radiant energy fluxes.
As far as throwing cold water on GHG theory, I thought your 2nd post in this series, “An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget”, May 23, 2109, was a clear, but commenter “Frank” had some very good explanations of where the analyses went wrong on physics.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/23/an-analysis-of-the-earths-energy-budget/#comment-2709025
and his comments below that one.
I hope “Frank” will comment on this post as well.
========
“Clearly this result is in direct contrast to observed atmospheric data, where we find that the convective process on the lit hemisphere produces a tropopause with a higher elevation during the hours of daylight compared to the nighttime. ”
As an aside, this is why tropical cyclones start rapid intensification phases at night. The lowering tropopause increases the convective heattowers’ teleconnnections between the warm water surface heat and very bottom of the stratosphere.
I think tropical cyclones and their heat engines are an excellent laboratory for many of these ideas. Clearly they are convection driven heat engines and the working fluid is water vapor, and the fuel is latent heat release. The reason I say this is because models of the physics of radiation transfer processes are on much firmer ground than the convective processes (and cloud formation) which a largely just hand-tuned parameters (if not exclusively).
Joel,
I had a look at Frank’s comments but what he doesn’t realise is that faster convection lowers the effective emission height whereas slower convection allows it to rise.
Consequently, his objections are misguided.
I don’t think the Schwarzschild’s equation is very applicable to a convecting atmosphere and it seems grossly misused in atmospheric science.
“According to Schwarzschild’s equation, the rate of fall in outward intensity is proportional to the density of GHGs (n) in the atmosphere and their absorption cross-sections (σλ). Any anthropogenic increase in GHGs will slow down the rate of radiative cooling to space, i.e. produce a radiative forcing.”
That might be true, if all of the energy in the atmosphere were due to radiative absorption in the first place. Of course we know this is laughably not true – pseudoscience. The radiatively absorbing/emitting fraction of the atmosphere is going to radiate IR regardless of whether there is IR absorption from the surface in the first place.
“As an aside, this is why tropical cyclones start rapid intensification phases at night.”
Joel,
An interesting observation and one that was not known to me.
By the same token I assume that temperate latitude cyclones become more intense in winter for the same reason.
Philip Mulholland July 8, 2019 at 1:42 am
A pole receives little or no sunshine in its winter.
=> surface temperatures drop
=> atmosphere shrinks
=> pressure gradient between (thermal) equator and pole increases
=> jetstreams intensify
=> Rosby waves intensify
Classical meteorology has a lot of answers.
I admit to being baffled by this, but I will reread it and perhaps some of it will sink in. Several questions:
First you say
Most of the energy in the atmosphere is internal energy which is some two and one-half times as plentiful as potential energy; but in a practical sense internal and potential energy in the atmosphere are not independent of one another. When air moves vertically its temperature changes simply because parcels in motion do work on the atmosphere or have work done on them by the atmosphere. What exactly consitutes potential energy in your view? Height of tropopause?
Also, why can’t potential energy be radiated away? Especially in view of internal and potential energy being interrelated.
Second, you say
The proportion of energy that is KE in the atmosphere is very small, 0.05% of the total. How can there be an interchange of KE with PE, however you define it, with KE, if the latter is so inconsequential?
Also, is the KE or the PE extracted from the “…air by radiatively cooling the surface…”? And, is being in contact with the surface a necessary part of this?
Third, you say
The impact of delays is interesting to ponder because, as you probably know, delays in systems are responsible for instabilities. However, how do delays lead accumulating additional energy?
Thanks.
Okay so if 0.05% of the energy in the atmosphere is KE and “internal” energies are 2.5 times higher than PE than where is the energy?! I would seriously love to finally see an answer to this because it seems you’re implying that the vast reservoir of energy within the atmosphere is in the intramolecular vibrations or angular momentum.
“However, how do delays lead accumulating additional energy?”
Kevin kilty.
The short answer is Yes.
A slightly longer answer is this. All mass motion processes which disturb an equilibrium create a lag in the system. For example, water lifted from the ocean by evaporation, and then deposited on the top of a mountain in the form of snow forms a stable high-altitude addition of potential energy to the mountain environment. The release of that potential energy, in the form of snow melt creates a delay that can be a seasonal lag, or as in the case of a polar icecap glacier, a millennial timescale lag.
“I admit to being baffled by this”
Let me describe to you the linked chain of logic that I used to arrive at my conclusions in the following way: –
1. Start with the Vacuum Planet equation with its integer 4 divisor of the power intensity flux. This equation was devised by astronomers as a simple way of calculating the thermal radiant emission temperature of a lit planet from external observation data. It is a mathematical trick. I sat in the Environmental Science lecture theatre in Bailrigg in 1972, and that is precisely how I remember it being described (maybe I am remembering with advantages as on St Crispin’s day?). The point is this, no one can ever be in any doubt that in the case of our single sun solar system, all planets are only ever lit on one side. So, the only proper and valid purpose of this trick equation is to calculate the low frequency radiant exhaust flux from a planet.
2. Climate science adopted the Vacuum Planet equation from astronomy, but because it is not calculating the surface temperature of a planet, a mechanism of energy flux recycling was devised to account for the raised surface temperature in the presence of an atmosphere.
3. However, all planets are lit only on one side and collect solar energy as a disk silhouette, but this collected power is distributed over the full surface area of the hemisphere. Hence the illumination divisor of the collection equation for the full area of the lit hemisphere is divide by 2. This is simple spherical geometry and it applies the same logical relationship as the vacuum equation with its integer 4 divisor. However, this time we are applying our illumination dilution divide by 2 process to the sunlight beam on the lit side only, and therefore it is perfectly valid.
4. But how do we link the sunlight daytime hemisphere of warming to the nightside of cooling? If the planet rotates then this is simply a matter of time, but what if the planet is tidally locked? How would the atmosphere respond in this case? To answer this question, we created Noonworld a model of a tidally locked planet with a pure nitrogen atmosphere. In the Noonworld model one side is always being heated and the other is always being cooled, and so we linked the two hemispheres with a single planet-wide Hadley cell.
5. The next modelling question is how do we partition the captured solar energy on the lit side between the two possible exit routes. These are 1. Energy capture by the air and 2. Direct low frequency thermal radiant loss to space. A diabatic partition ratio of 50% to the air and 50% direct loss to space from the lit surface appears to be the most appropriate choice. The model now works by transporting mass and energy to the dark side of Noonworld, where 50% of the power intensity flux is lost to space and 50% is retained. The returning air is therefore carrying energy back to the lit side which is now receiving two sources of energy, the sunlight and the returned air.
6. The Noonworld Hadley cell cycles indefinitely but the recycling process stabilises when the return air carries 1/3 of the retained energy back to the lit side. On the lit side the total budget becomes 1 solar unit plus 1/3 air = 4/3. Of this hemisphere budget 2/3 is lost to space and 2/3 is exported to the dark side. Here 1/3 is lost to space and 1/3 is returned. The Noonworld planetary Hadley cell now forms an endless stable cycle with a system gain of 2.
7. Here is where it starts to get interesting. Our diabatic model of Noonworld, with its 50% : 50% energy partition ratio is in radiative balance, and is an almost exact match to the Vacuum Planet equation. But there is no greenhouse effect, and yet this time we are dealing with a surface system of atmospheric mass movement and energy flux and not a top of the atmosphere equation. So, the question now becomes this. Is a 50%: 50% energy flux partition ratio for the lit side surface correct? In the case of a planet such as Mars with its low-pressure atmosphere and minimal greenhouse effect a 50 :50 ratio is indeed correct for the surface calculation. But what about Earth, Titan and of course Venus, all examples of terrestrial bodies with atmospheres that have greater than 100 mbar surface pressure?
8. On Earth with its 1 bar atmosphere, radiant forced convection on the lit hemisphere and in the presence of a gravity field results in enhanced energy capture by the ascending air. With any flux partition ratio in favour of the air the gain of the Hadley cell increases. For any gain greater than 2 then the surface temperature of the planetary atmosphere will rise, and this is a pressure related effect of solar radiant forced convection. The air temperature will increase and this occurs without any need to invoke radiant blocking by atmospheric opacity, and so the concept of a back-radiation greenhouse effect can be abandoned.
I question the vacuum albedo of 0.3, because that is the existing albedo for the Earth including clouds, that can not exist in vacuum. Please be more specific in the conditions.
I calculate the average surface temperature to be somewhere around 273K if all the atmosphere and clouds was removed
“I question the vacuum albedo of 0.3”
Svend,
The Vacuum Planet equation is a top of atmosphere calculation.
It is being used to measure the situation outside the “black box” of the climate system.
The equation determines the radiant exhaust temperature of the flux going back out into the vacuum of space at the upper edge of the atmosphere.
The albedo filter has already been applied to the insolation and it cuts down the energy inside the climate system. Albedo therefore also controls the power intensity flux leaving the planetary atmosphere.
Joel said:
“Yet the vast deep cold oceans are where the thermal stability of Earth’s climate lies.”
which is absolutely correct but again it comes back to atmospheric pressure bearing down on the ocean surface as per my analysis here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-setting-and-maintaining-of-earths-equilibrium-temperature/
Second, it is physically impossible to lose potential energy by radiant thermal emission.
========
this to me is the critical issue. The potential energy involved in raising the atmospheric height. This reduces the amount of energy available to radiate to space. And the reduction in radiated energy to space is called the greenhouse effect.
It is my contention that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experienced is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
AGW is a conjecture that at first seems to be quite plausible but upon closer inspection, the conjecture is full of holes. The biggest problem is that the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. The AGW conjecture also seems to assume that all other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are essentially thermally inert and that all heat transfer from the Earth”s surface to space takes place via LWIR radiation and that all other forms of heat transfer within the Earth’s atmosphere can be ignored. Another assumption is that H2O, the primary greenhouse gas takes its orders from CO2. Something is definitely wrong here.
As it turns out, a real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the presence of heat trapping gases. In fact, the LWIR absorbing gases in the atmosphere do not really trap heat energy because good absorbers are also good radiators and what LWIR energy they absorb, they also radiate away. But the so called greenhouse gases also share energy with surrounding gases and they are heated by neighboring gas molecules and some of that energy they gain from neighboring molecules they radiate away. It is really the non-greenhouse gas molecules that are more apt to trap heat energy because they are such poor radiators to space. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass decreases cooling by convection. So there is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. Instead it is entirely a convective greenhouse effect.
So too on Earth where instead of glass, gravity along with the heat capacity of the atmosphere limits cooling by convection. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface on the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it might otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the number derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is hence science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really affected climate than one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
What I am saying is definitely not original with me. I believe that the material in this article supports what I am saying. Please let me know where I may be wrong.
Yourself……”As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface on the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it might otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the number derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured.”
The only extra 33ºC warming that I can see is that of the latent heat of water vapour which reduces the lapse rate to an average of 6.7ºC/km and thereby creates an increase in potential temperature of 3.3ºC/km…which at an average 10km high tropopause gives the 33ºC warming.
If it were possible to instantaneously physically mix that 33ºC of potential temperature increase to that of the adiabatic lapse rate of 10ºC/km , the thermal gradient would pivot around the average to warm the surface by 16.5ºC and cool the tropopause by the same amount.
This warming however is a result of evaporative cooling at the surface …so water in all its forms is a modifier of extremes not an amplifier.
”..but in addition air also heats adiabatically, which is a turbulent process of energy acquisition, as a critical part of daytime surface heating.”
This statement is not well written. Yes, heating is a process of energy acquisition, the gross energy IN ( dayrime SW) is greater than the gross energy OUT (daytime LW). Thus energy IN net of energy OUT positive means energy acquired in a controlled volume. That is plainly a diabatic process & is not “heats adiabatically”. Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm.
”Second, it is physically impossible to lose potential energy by radiant thermal emission. Atmospheric adiabatic energy transport is a meteorological process that delivers energy, without any transport loss.”
This is also not well written. A parcel (higher, same, lower T) than ambient T can cool by emitting radiation, becoming denser than surroundings and sink lower thus losing both total PE and avg. constituent particle KE equal to the emitted radiation by 1LOT until diabatic processes restore equilibrium with surroundings.
“Without any transport loss” implies mass does not radiate when transported which was a problem in the earlier post when radiation was assumed to be ignored so of course did not have any resultant effect.
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/STARS/Lecture07.pdf
The virial theorem for a system in equilibrium: −2[K] = [U] (7.1)
where K and U are the kinetic and potential energy respectively and the
brackets denote time averages, tells us that:
[E] = [K] + [U] =1/2[U] (7.2)
only half the change in gravitational potential energy is available to be
radiated away as the protostar contracts; the remaining potential energy
supplies the thermal energy that heats the gas.
Robert 11:15am, if you want to learn about an enormous dust cloud in space contracting due the physics of a protostar, this is not the best blog for discussion. If you want to learn about Earth atmosphere available potential energy and the maintenance of the Hadley cell et. al. general circulation the foundational paper you need to learn from is Lorenz 1955, here for example:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v7i2.8796
I’ve pointed this paper out to Stephen several times but Stephen is not accomplished enough in meteorology to understand the paper and use its content. The top post discussion of general circulation should use also this paper (and modern successors) from which to build a well-founded discussion on Hadley Cell dynamics of the Earth’s planetary climate or at the very least be consistent with it.
Lorenz 1955 paper opening: “In general the motion of the atmosphere is not adiabatic.” In the top post, go ahead and count the times the word “adiabatic” is employed to describe the motion of the atmosphere. There is an obvious disconnect rather than consistency with the paper.
What Lorenz means in saying that ‘in general the motion of the atmosphere is not adiabatic’ is that it is divergences from the adiabatic condition that generally describe motion within the body of the atmosphere.
He makes that clear in these words:
“Under adiabatic flow the sum of the available potential energy and the kinetic energy is conserved, but large increases in available potential energy are usually accompanied by increases in kinetic energy, and therefore involve nonadiabatic effects.”
Not only does Trick constantly move the goal posts whenever a good point is made but he invariably distorts meanings to suit his preconceived agenda of obfuscation.
In every sense he is a true Troll whose primary purpose is to patronise others and generate a sense of superiority for himself whilst actually getting it all wrong.
He is best ignored.
Stephen, it is decent of you to use Lorenz’ own words. Good job.
Compare Lorenz’ actual words and work to what is found in the top post and show they are consistent with his words, body of paper, and conclusions for: “large increases in available potential energy are usually accompanied by increases in kinetic energy, and therefore involve nonadiabatic effects.”. Show where the authors top post work has progressed beyond the work of Lorenz’ and modern-day successor work in meteorology that built on the foundation he laid.
Top post words:
“adiabatic climate modelling process.”
“the adiabatic model”
“adiabatic climate model (Table 4).”
“adiabatic model of the Hadley cell”
“adiabatic model of the Polar cell”
“adiabatic model of Earth’s climate”
“Single Lit Hemisphere Adiabatic Model.”
So forth. A search for nonadiabatic returned no hits (except 1 for Lorenz’ use) unless a different spelling was used. It appears the authors of the top post have a bit of work to do to reconcile their work with that of Lorenz. Participants in the field of meteorology will not pay attention until that is done.
The top post deals only with the thermal consequences of the initial acquisition and subsequent recycling of the potential energy content of an atmosphere which is exclusively adiabatic and so does not deal with the internal non-adiabatic variations within the bulk flow that Lorenz was referring to.
As usual, your comments are misleading and obfuscatory.
“The top post deals only with the thermal consequences of the initial acquisition and subsequent recycling of the potential energy content of an atmosphere”
Lorenz further down: “Evidently the total potential energy is not a good measure of the amount of energy available for conversion into kinetic energy under adiabatic flow.”
The more I dig in to compare Lorenz words to top post, the larger the task becomes in reconciling the top post with Lorenz’ foundational paper on available PE and the general circulation, just as top post suggests a need for: “we have incorporated into the analysis elements designed to address valid and constructive criticisms made by commentators of the previous essays.”
Temperature on Earth is a function of water, its phases and its distribution.
The vapour pressure of water rises rapidly above 25C:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgzHH3_zoyapHehla
The increase in atmospheric water vapour as the temperature of tropical oceans rise results in. increased cloud formation over tropical and sub-tropical oceans as the air circulates, ultimately reaching the same temperature at the sea ice interface always -1.7C. The increased cloud reflects more sunlight.
Surface temperature of tropical ocean rarely reach 30C while surface temperature of polar oceans is -1.7C. Area averaged ocean surface temperature is 16C; not quite the midpoint of 30C and -1.7C due to the distribution of the water being greater in tropical and sub-tropical zones.
The two very powerful negative feedbacks maintaining temperature control are (a) cloud formation due to increased water vapour reducing the heat input into tropical and sub-tropical oceans and (b) loss of sea ice near the poles due to higher sea surface temperature increasing heat output.
Rising ocean surface temperature results in increased tropical and sub-tropical cloud and reduced sea ice; both contributing to less energy in the climate system and ultimately cooling. Cooling ocean surface results in less tropical and sub-tropical cloud and increased sea ice; both contributing to more energy in the climate systems.
Climate on Earth is controlled by water, its phases and its distribution. Local weather is more complex but it should not be confused with global climate.
The global average temperate of the moon is 197K; nothing like the 254K that is prescribed for an airless rock at Earth’s distance from the sun in the greenhouse gas fairytale.
That 197K is the surface brightness temperature as observed by radiometers on DIVINER that depend on settings for surface emissivity, scattering (albedo) and non-negligible amount of surface particle diffraction. To the extent those settings are off, and diffraction non-negligible, the steady state equilibrium thermometer temperature could be different. But there is no GHCN thermometer data for the moon only very sparse surface instrumental thermometer readings so nobody really knows. For example, the CERES radiometer emissivity settings had to be calibrated with Argo data.
Some work has been done for debate purposes and published showing any eventual GHCN steady state equilibrium near surface thermometer readings would be more like 250K give or take a big margin due all the unknowns. There is no research interest in this currently as no funds available or incented to improve the DIVINER results. Nobody going to live there for long any time soon.
The 197K is a derived value using Diviner data calibrated to surface measurements from Apollo missions – fundamentally the same way CERES data is derived but with a narrower range of surface than with Earth because it does not have to cater for high reflectance clouds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/
A key point in the paper is Holder’s Inequality that demonstrates the mathematical nonsense of applying Stefan Boltzman equation to an area averaged surface temperature as done in the greenhouse gas fairytale.
The DIVINER project itself did not calibrate a global result to Apollo thermometers Rick; as far as I can find it didn’t publish a global brightness temperature for the moon.
The paper you link modeled the optical properties of the surface: for albedo “The shortwave albedo of regolith was modeled…” and they guessed the regolith emissivity “ε is the average regolith long-wave emissivity; typically 0.95 ≤ ε < 0.99; in this study ε = 0.98…The thermal emissivity of regolith was assumed to be spatially invariant ”. That paper “assumes” the same global surface emissivity as Earth with much larger particle sizes composing the 30% terrain.
The problem with the “assuming” of the regolith emissivity at 0.98 is doesn’t allow for small illuminated particle size diffraction. There is significant diffraction since the moon surface particle size has been significantly pounded to powder with diameter on order of illumination wavelength of interest over 20-25% or more of the surface area. There IS spatial variance.
Taking this issue into account would lead to a higher global brightness temperature result.
The 197K global brightness temperature is at best a guess/assumption until enough thermometers are placed in the surface to then reasonably measure the moon’s global near surface steady state equilibrium thermometer temperature. There is no driver to solve this lack of in situ data or publish improved results by reducing the assumptions so will remain a debate for the foreseeable future.
Btw, Holder’s inequality is an issue with analytical spherical integration so is already taken into account for the actual measurements of the near spherical Earth thus is not an issue with the satellite observations or the GHCN thermometer readings which measure global Teff~255K and global Tsurface~288K.
Holder’s Inequality is not taken into account. The method of deriving the meaningless number 255K then comparing it to an average surface temperature of 288K demonstrates that.
Without thermal inertia, like the vast expanse of surface water on Earth, the area averaged global surface temperature for a non thermally conductive spherical black rock same distance as Earth from the sun would be 160K. The temperature ranges from 398K at midday at 0 latitude to 2.7K for the entirety of the dark side.
The relatively low thermal inertia of the moon; its reflectivity for SWR and emissivity for LWR increases the temperature from the case of the black sphere by 37 degrees K to 197K. Nothing like the meaningless 255K offered in the greenhouse gas fairy tale.
This link will gives you more insight into Holder’s Inequality as applied to averaging Earth’s temperature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
”The method of deriving the meaningless number 255K then comparing it to an average surface temperature of 288K demonstrates that.”
Again, Rick, the 255K is not only “derived”. The 255K is Earth’s multiannual brightness temperature observed from instrumentation on CERES looking down at Earth system.
In the derivation of the 255K, Holder’s inequality is lost in the weeds. Ok, correctly using Holder’s inequality in the derivation analysis you would get 4.003 for the divisor instead of 4. So 254.999K.
And, yes I am aware of Dr. Spencer’s and many others insight that you cannot average intensive properties like temperatures, you have to average extensive properties like energy then convert to temperature.
Yet you still accept the meaningless average brightness temperature of 255K used in the greenhouse gas fairytale.
I accept what the satellites measure (Earth ~255K global steady state equilibrium brightness temperature) since they began observing long enough ago and are well calibrated to surface thermometer temperatures now with data reported over more than 15 annual periods.