Guest post by Wim Röst
Abstract
The energy budget for the surface is different from Earth’s energy budget. A look at the surface energy budget reveals that radiation is not the main factor in cooling the surface. The dominant factor in surface cooling is convection, responsible for the removal of more than three quarters of the surface’s energy.
Introduction
People live on the surface; thus, we are interested in surface temperatures. Surface temperatures result from the energy flux absorbed and released by the surface. Those energy fluxes are shown by the surface energy budget presented below in Table 1 and Figure 1. The energy budget of the surface is simple. Only two factors play a role in cooling the surface.
The surface
For Earth, as a planet, it is most important to know how much energy is entering the upper atmosphere and how much energy is leaving the upper atmosphere. However, for the surface and for surface temperatures it is important to know how much energy is entering and leaving the surface.
For billions of years life has survived on or near the surface of the Earth. Surface temperatures must have been very stable and must have always remained within certain limits. One big temperature anomaly during those billions of years would have killed all life on Earth. A closer look at energy flux at the surface shows which processes must be responsible for that stability.
Definition of ‘the surface’
For energy flux at the surface normally a broader definition of ‘the surface’ is used. Strictly speaking ‘the surface’ is just the contact layer between land and ocean with air. But for measuring ‘surface temperatures’ a level about 1.80 meter above the surface is used. Furthermore, absorption of solar energy ‘by the surface’ includes the absorption of solar energy by oceans to a depth of 200 meters. This indicates that for surface energy flux a broader definition of ‘the surface’ is needed.
Warming and cooling
To understand developments in surface temperatures both warming and cooling processes are important. The numbers used for the surface energy budget are derived from Kiehl-Trenberth’s 1997 Earth’s Energy Budget (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997).*
The solar shortwave energy flux warming the surface is 168 W/m2. The surface cooling fluxes observed are as follows.
Evaporation
Evaporation is the primary surface cooling process. Evaporation causes the fastest moving water molecules to escape from the surface, leaving the slower moving molecules behind and the surface cools. The escaping molecules carry ‘latent heat of evaporation’ with them and account for 78 W/m2 or nearly half (46.4 %) of total surface cooling.
Conduction
The surface loses absorbed energy by conduction: a warm surface loses sensible heat to the cooler air above. 24 W/m2 or 14.3% of total surface cooling results from conduction.**
Radiation
Most of the energy that leaves the surface in the form of radiation (390 W/m2) returns as back radiation, mostly from greenhouse gases: 324 W/m2. This part is not cooling the surface, it is not a net loss. This energy is going ‘from one pocket to the other’ without cooling the surface.
Part of the radiative energy leaving the surface directly reaches space. 40 W/m2 or 23.8% of all net surface cooling is radiated from the surface straight into space. It reaches space at about the speed of light, much faster than other processes.
The remaining 26 W/m2 of surface radiation is the part that is leaving the surface as radiation but is absorbed by greenhouse gases and not returned to the surface in the form of back radiation. This 26 W/m2 warms the air where it became absorbed: very near to the surface. After absorption this 26 W/m2 is thermalized: the absorbed energy is transmitted to other air molecules (mainly N2 and O2) and continues as sensible heat.
Total surface cooling
Total surface cooling by each factor is shown in Table 1.
Surface warming
168 W/m2 of the Sun’s incoming shortwave energy warms the surface as it is absorbed. The total of all cooling factors in Table 1 add to the same amount of 168 W/m2. Back radiation is adding many W/m2 to the surface (324 W/m2) but the same quantity of radiation leaves the surface as part of the 390 W/m2 radiative heat loss. The result is a net surface warming / cooling by back radiation of zero W/m2.
Surface cooling
‘Energy In’ must equal ‘Energy Out’ to keep temperatures stable. Any change in factors that are warming or cooling the surface will affect surface temperatures. Factors that are cooling and are warming the surface are shown in Figure 1.
Conduction and net absorbed radiation provide the lower atmosphere with 50 W/m2 of sensible heat. Together with the 78 W/m2 latent heat this thermal energy from sensible heat must be transported high in the atmosphere where it can be radiated into space. At the surface, there is a high rate of absorption of radiation by abundant water vapor. Because of this, direct radiation to space is inhibited. Radiation into space on the average takes place from about 5 kilometers above the Earth’s surface where radiation absorbing water molecules are rare. Above the clouds radiation to space becomes easier.
The transport to higher altitudes of a total of 128 W/m2 of latent and other thermal energy takes place via convection. Convection is the main player in surface cooling. Net surface radiation to space is only responsible for 40 W/m2 of the total surface heat loss. As surface temperatures rise, more evaporation takes place and convection works harder to cool the surface.
Three forms of energy transport cool the surface. But all surface energy is transported away from the surface (broad definition) in just two ways: by convection and by radiation. See Table 2.
Convection which is responsible for three quarters of all upward transport of surface energy is a very dynamic process. Convective heat loss varies from hour to hour, from day to day, from season to season, from year to year, and varies by geological period. It also constantly varies from place to place. Both quantity and speed of convection are constantly varying, adapting to local circumstances.
To understand changes in surface temperatures, understanding dynamics of convective heat loss is important.
The mechanism that sets the level of surface temperatures
When temperatures rise (which happens every day as soon as the Sun starts shining) more water vapor fills the air. This lowers the density of the air column. Water vapor is lighter (less dense) than dry air, so evaporation lowers the local air density and convection starts spontaneously. Convection carries latent heat of evaporation and all surface sensible heat from the surface upward to a higher altitude. Rising temperatures and rising water vapor cause convective cooling. But when temperatures go down the whole process of convective cooling slows down.
The surface stops the extra cooling at the point where extra warming is neutralized. Surface cooling is a daily occurring dynamic process that works harder at higher temperatures and less at lower temperatures. Dynamic daily cooling follows dynamic daily warming. Surface heating is always followed by surface cooling.
Theory
An object in space, like a planet, is cooled by radiation. On a rock planet without a greenhouse atmosphere all cooling takes place from the surface and no surface radiation is absorbed after release from the surface. But in the case of a planet surrounded by greenhouse gases effective radiation to space only takes place from elevations where greenhouse gases are sufficiently absent.
On an ocean planet water vapor dominates the greenhouse atmosphere and energy absorption in the lower atmosphere delays surface heat loss, so the surface is warmer than the surface of a rock planet. Convection has to take over the transport of energy to higher elevations in order to restore unhindered radiation to space.
From a rock planet without greenhouse gases to a full ocean Earth that is dominated by water and water vapor, the share of radiation in surface cooling diminishes. The surface of the rock planet is cooled 100% by radiation transport. The surface of ocean planet is mostly cooled by convection which transports sensible and latent heat from the surface to higher elevations. See Figure 2.
General rule: the more greenhouse gases an atmosphere contains, the smaller the role of radiation in surface cooling. And the higher the role of convection.
Conclusions
The Earth’s surface is mostly cooled by convection, not by radiation. Most surface radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases and radiation transport becomes ineffective in cooling the surface. Only 23.8% of all surface energy is lost by direct radiation from surface into space.
The remaining three quarters of surface energy remains in the atmosphere just above the surface in the form of latent and sensible heat. This energy must be transported upward by convection. Energy can only effectively be radiated into space from higher altitudes because the upper air lacks the main greenhouse gas, water vapor. Water vapor absorbs most surface-emitted radiation near to the surface and transports it as latent heat to higher altitudes where it is released when the vapor condenses into liquid water droplets. There it is more easily emitted to space. For effective surface cooling, the upward transport of thermal energy, via convection, is key. Without convection the surface would not be cooled to present temperatures and would become warmer.
When greenhouse gases are absent from the atmosphere, radiation to space provides 100% of surface cooling. When the content of greenhouse gases rises the role of radiation diminishes in favor of the role of convection.
On Earth, the main greenhouse gas, water vapor, absorbs most surface radiated energy. Radiation, therefore, cannot cool the surface effectively. The cooling of the surface of the Earth is about three quarters dependent on convection.
The process of convection is very dynamic: it increases as temperatures rise and subsides as temperatures fall. Dynamic convective surface cooling follows surface heating, which stabilizes surface temperatures.
With regards to commenting, please adhere to the rules known for this site: quote and react, not personal.
About the author: Wim Röst studied human geography in Utrecht, the Netherlands. The above is his personal view. He is not connected to firms or foundations nor is he funded by government(s).
Thanks to Andy May who was so kind to correct and improve the text where necessary and useful.
* The Earth’s Energy Budget by Kiehl-Trenberth 1997:
** In figure 3 ‘Thermals’ are mentioned where ‘conduction’ is meant. Table 1 in Kiehl-Trenbert 1997 mentions “surface sensible heat” and NASA shows in their energy budget ‘Conduction/convection’. Neither ‘thermals’ nor ‘convection’ are correct: convection should involve all sensible heat resulting from absorption and should involve all latent heat of evaporation. Sensible and latent heat have to be transported to higher elevations in order to be radiated to space.
A remark has to be made about the vertical scale used in fig. 3. Absorption of surface radiation and radiation back to the surface takes place very close to the surface, often within a few meters. The vertical scale as used in the figure 2 does not represent reality.
Works Cited
Kiehl, J., and Kevin Trenberth. 1997. “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget.” BAMS 78 (2): 197-208. https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/78/2/197/55482
Philip Mulholland September 15, 2020 at 11:16 am
“Please tell me what actually allows energy to leave the planet”
Nighttime.
——————
Brilliant. So particles of nighttime are blackbody or grey body radiators? What is the altitude of nighttime particles where they radiate
The only things that can balance the energy from the sun by radiating to space are GHGs, Clouds, solid objects like ground.
Ghalfrunt,
One word answers are best.
The correct terminology is “radiative” gases.
The only gas that acts remotely like a greenhouse, in altering convection, is H2O.
The original naming of “GHG” , way back, was due to a misunderstanding of the atmospheric physics.
Science needs correcting.
People seem to believe the sun delivers photons, and then the Earth spits them ALL out.
Do those solar photons add to KINETIC energy, i.e. molecular motion? or not? Is that motion not the spending of photonic energy in real time? So what is left to be emitted? Why would anything be emitted to space? (Ignore satellite measurements. Satellites are matter. They can receive photons)
If you move a chair 1 meter across, is it supposed to go back 1 meter by itself? You’re the photons, the movement is your work.
If you can prove the chair moves back, then I’ll believe Earth actually emits ~240 W/m^2 to space, and space only (not moon or satellites).
Until then, think!
[[The energy budget for the surface is different from Earth’s energy budget. A look at the surface energy budget reveals that radiation is not the main factor in cooling the surface. The dominant factor in surface cooling is convection, responsible for the removal of more than three quarters of the surface’s energy. ]]
Funny, but that’s what the first critics of G.S. Callendar’s CO2 radiation-driven Earth surface heating theory observed back in 1938:
“The temperature distribution of the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the
movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation.” – https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/29/peer-review-comments-on-callendar-1938/
Too bad, the leftist-run U.N. IPCC has no interest in real science, only in framing CO2 emissions as evil so they can get governments to force the shutdown of the fossil fuel industry that is the engine driving capitalism to pave the way for mass poverty, starvation, anarchy, and finally global Marxism.
To fool the public, plus a number of kept useful idiot scientists, they push the narrative that the Sun alone can’t keep the Earth from freezing, and that only atmospheric CO2 saves us, but at the same time it’s at a dangerous tipping point threatening climate Armageddon if the CO2 emissions aren’t completely shut off now. This is pure moose hockey, because atmospheric CO2 can’t melt an ice cube with its 15 micron absorption/wavelength that is the same as -80C dry ice and can’t even interfere with Earth’s surface temperature range of -50C to +50C.
Yes, some of the heat deposited on Earth’s surface by solar radiation radiates harmlessly to space, but most of it conducts to the air in contact with it then slowly convects toward space, wasting most of its energy to convert heat to work as it expands against the decreasing pressure, generating winds and weather. The Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse but a gigantic chimney that’s also a Carnot heat engine that uses solar heat as fuel to drive our weather system. And I’m not even mentioning clouds which use the almost magical powers of water to keep Earth surface temperatures livable, but are more likely to force runaway cooling AKA ice ages than runaway heating.
Nobody interested in the Earth climate field can afford to ignore the fatal-80C problem with the IPCC’s fake physics CO2 warming hoax. Here’s my essay explaining all the details, furnishing an education in radiative physics. I wish the general public would catch on and laugh the IPCC octopus into oblivion, but unfortunately they control the media and use their great power to spread lies while suppressing the simple fatal truth that should be the end to their whole circus. I wish that one of the duped billionaires like Bill Gates would happen on this message and write a check for a billion or two to pay for the big lie about CO2 to be preached throughout the world.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
Very enjoyable link, TLW. 🙂
“The Earth’s surface is mostly cooled by convection, not by radiation. “
Silly and pointless distinctions are being made here. In fact the dominant mode of heat transfer near the surface is advection due to wind shear, and the associated turbulence. That dominates over a vertical scale of up to hundreds of meters, and of course induces fluxes both ways. It keeps the temperature reasonably uniform locally. But it doesn’t move heat very far vertically.
The Trenberth diagram is all about how the heat comes in from space, and gets out again. Turbulent heat transfer, because of the short scale, isn’t a big factor here. Thermal convection works over a somewhat longer scale, and so gets a mention. But on the scales important to the heat budget, radiation dominates, and then latent heat transfer.
Nick Stokes: “But on the scales important to the heat budget, radiation dominates, and then latent heat transfer”
WR: How is sensible and latent heat from the surface transported to the average height of 5 km needed for emission to space while the lower atmosphere is opaque for nearly all radiation?
There is nothing special about 5 km. The atmosphere doesn’t suddenly become transparent there. And it wasn’t opaque below. Some IR bands pass with little absorption; with others there is absorption and re-emission. That impedes transport, but doesn’t prevent it.
“There is nothing special about 5 km.”
Or any elevation higher
It seems sea level is pretty special.
Also what going on near ocean floor is important.
Nick Stokes: “There is nothing special about 5 km”.
WR: The special thing about 5 km is that it is the average elevation from where radiation into space has to take place. This implies that in some way surface energy has to be transported to [on average] 5 km.
If it is not by convection, how does that upward transport takes place? And where is it shown?
Mountains.
Sorry Nick, but the main movement of energy in the atmosphere is by air movement. That includes winds, and convection
Convection isn’t just a small parcel of air, it moves the whole column of air above it.
The energy transfer is enormous.
Analysis of balloon data proves that the air remains in thermodynamic equilibrium except for the effect of H2O during the day, and that equilibrium is controlled by the molecular density, ie atmospheric pressure.
“LW radiation 390 W/m2, latent heating 78 W/m2, sensible heating 24 W/m2. Even these figures are not up-to-date, how can anybody claim that 78 greater than 390?”
What is 390, mostly. The temperature is of the surface of ocean, which is 70% of the entire earth surface. And that ocean surface average about 17 C. And the average surface air temperature of 30% of planet surface which the land area averages about 10 C. And 80% of tropics is ocean, and tropic ocean is heat engine of the world and has average surface temperature of about 26 C.
TL;DR Version
Surface energy gain ≈ one half kilowatt per square metre as a 24/7 global average
of which:
~ 170 W/m2 is shortwave (solar)
~ 330 W/m2 is longwave (thermal infrared from atmosphere)
Surface energy loss ≈ one half kilowatt per square metre as a 24/7 global average
of which:
~ 110 W/m2 is sensible and latent heat loss to the atmosphere
~ 390 W/m2 is longwave (thermal infrared from surface)
Now Wim, you like to subtract one from the other … the problem is that if you subtract the surface energy gains from the surface energy losses, you conclude that there is no energy flowing through the system …
And the issue is this—those are real and separate energy flows. They are different physical entities that exist in the real world.
You want to ignore those actual physical flows and replace them with a totally imaginary flow, one that is NOT a physical entity existing in the real world.
And when you do that, you’ve left the real world and anything is possible.
Finally, you claim you are only interested in solar energy … but you say:
Energy flux. Not solar flux. Energy flux.
w.
“The energy budget for the surface is different from Earth’s energy budget. A look at the surface energy budget reveals that radiation is not the main factor in cooling the surface. The dominant factor in surface cooling is convection, responsible for the removal of more than three quarters of the surface’s energy.”
Which makes upwelling surface LWIR emissivity .25 not .95.
No matter how many times it is pointed out to you, Nick, you keep getting the concept of emissivity completely wrong. It’s one of the most basic concepts in heat transfer, and you don’t understand it AT ALL!
A comment on the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget. It’s one of the reasons I got interested in climate. Here it is:
I looked at it and I thought “that’s not possible—up and down radiation have to be about equal”. And when I analyzed it, I also realized that a single-layer greenhouse couldn’t represent earth—not enough energy gathered to allow for the heating plus the losses. So I calculated my own energy budget, one which avoids those problems.
Note that unlike the K/T budget above, in my energy budget, at all levels the amount of energy absorbed equals that emitted, and the amount radiated upwards equals that radiated downwards.
My best to all … and if you are among those who can’t explain in detail why a single-layer greenhouse is unable to model the earth, perhaps you might dial back a bit on your certainty about these questions.
w.
29 seems like a lot reflected light from surface.
The most amount sunlight reaching surface is during peak solar hours and ocean not reflecting much sunlight during that time.
I have seen much in terms tropical zone energy budgets and never seen one for tropical ocean.
CERES puts the global average reflected sunlight at 23 W/m2.
It also puts the tropical ocean reflected sunlight at 43 W/m2.
w.
so reflected sunlight which is leaving earth from the surface {and I assume mostly at low angle? – therefore traveling thru a huge amount of Earth’s atmosphere]
Yep. 29 W/m^2 reflected from Earth’s surface plus 76 W/m^2 reflected by “clouds, aerosols & atmosphere” = 105 W/m^2. Divide that by Willis’ incoming 342 W/m^2 (an unexplained slight increase above the generally-accepted value of 341.3 W/m^2 that K-T uses) and Earth’s overall average albedo magically becomes 0.307, which is higher than the scientific, commonly-accepted value of 0.30.
Think this difference doesn’t matter? It is a difference of 2.3%. In comparison, the K-T diagram—and even Willis’ modification of such—is tracking fluxes to the nearest 1 W/m^2 out of the largest single value of 341 (Willis’ value of 341) . . . implying a necessary precision of 1/341 = 0.3%. That’s an 8:1 difference, and it REALLY MATTERS!
I have some albedo trends from http://www.climatedata.info.
Average isn’t even close to representing what actually happens.
Albedo is very low around the equator and very high around the poles.
Hmm, wonder why that is?
A monthly trend barely exceeded 0.25 and fell as low as .15.
Averages are for fools and simpletons!
I agree with you that the 1 layer model is not enough. You need 2 layers for the funny GHE math to boost from 168 to 392.
There is still a loop of unknown origin, however.
Is the backradiation created from geothermal, or from that 169 of the sun trying to escape?
Geothermal makes more sense. Even Fourier thought geothermal could melt ice cubes (average location).
–Is the backradiation created from geothermal, or from that 169 of the sun trying to escape?–
Geothermal is actually energy that can do work.
Geothermal: 1
backradiation: 0
The idea of this blog is not according to the physical reality. The surface receives about 510 W/m2 energy and because the surface temperature is almost stable and constant, it means that the same amount of energy is cooling the surface. It is that simple. I am wondering why WUWT publishes this kind of rubbish.
Antero, you mistake the purpose of WUWT. It is not to only publish validated, verified ideas.
Instead, it functions as a public peer review of all types of papers, good and bad. In this instance, it allows people to understand exactly why Wim’s ideas are not generally accepted.
w.
Antero,
I learn by making mistakes and then hopefully improve by correcting my errors.
How do you learn?
One can also learn by listening to an experienced/qualified teacher . . . or several. I have found many such teachers here at WUWT and have learned much from them.
Gordon
Army Training Manual 101
Tell em – They listen and forget,
Show em – They see and remember,
Make em do it – They learn and understand.
(OK, I crafted this from memory, but it is pretty close to the original I heard many years ago)
Did you ever go to high school or college. Why?
“Did you ever go to high school or college. Why?”
Gordon,
That is precisely where I was told this, but notice that I do not remember it verbatim.
Why?
Phillip,
Having to remember something verbatim is not the same as learning.
Memorization is helpful in dealing with life, but of far greater importance is gaining knowledge of principles such as logic, inductive and deductive reasoning, the scientific method, mathematics (particularly algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus; as well as interpolation and extrapolation and how to read and construct various types of graphs), physics (at least the basics across a wide range of disciplines), the art of effective communication (in speaking and writing), the appreciation of history (you know, those that don’t learn its lessons are doomed to repeat them), and what many of the greatest past and present philosophers have observed and/or mused over.
I have undoubtedly left out many other significant things that one learns in high school and college . . . these are just the most significant that I could summarize quickly from my own experience.
And please note that, in regards to the greatly-simplistic Army manual that you summarized, some—but not all—of school/college education does involve “showing them” and “making them do it”: these activities are generally referred to as “classroom presentations/demonstrations” and “lab work/homework”, respectively.
To answer the exact question that you asked:
1) Time passes, plus
2) The human brain parses inputs on both short-term and long-term priority bases, and tend to discard inputs it considers as basically “junk”, plus
3) The human mind is not infallible.
All above IMHO.
Antero Ollila, for you the same question as I posed elsewhere: how big is the role of convection in the upward transport of surface energy to the elevations needed for direct radiation to space? What is the physical reality of convection? Please in exact numbers.
Sensible heat is convection type of heat transfer and the best estimate I know is 24 W/m2. Latent heating is a combinations of convection and the heat release of latent energy, and the best estimate is 91 W/m2. Without convection, lantent heat would not rise up from the surface. It is a matter of definition. If I say that it is totally convection, it is incorrect, because the main role is by the latent heat. So, I would call it latent heating and not convection heat transfer.
Thanks Antero. I understand that the 91 W/m2 is a combination of the effect of the sensible heat of 24 W/m2 and latent energy (in this post 78 W/m2 – Kiehl Trenberth).
If correct, one more question. What about the 26 W/m2 absorbed radiation as shown in figure 2 of this post? Is it involved in the 91 W/m2 mentioned? If not, shouldn’t it be added? All sensible heat has a convective effect.
Backradiation at 324W/m^2?
The atmosphere is average 255K/-18C, the maximum emission of a perfectly emitting blackbody at 255K is ~240W/m^2. Only an idiot would claim that a gas at -18C emits 80W/m^2 MORE than a blackbody.
The errors in the greenhouse hypothesis is amazing.
Very true, but it seems there are lots of idiots out there who are prepared to believe this unphysical stuff that does not even withstand the test of common sense or daily experience.
One of the problems with the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram is that, while some of the figures are actual heat flows in w/m2, the figures for radiation from the earth and backradiation are not. They are measures of what you might call a flux field, which are derived from temperature readings, and give an indication of potential heat flows, not actual flows, which are determined by the difference in temperature between the radiative sources. And as we know, while radiation may pass both ways between them, the net heat flow is only ever in the direction of from warmer to cooler.
The key figure therefore is the difference between surface radiation and backradiation, which is a positive number because THE SURFACE WARMS THE ATMOSPHERE, AND NOT VICE VERSA. I wish these freaks would learn to understand this simple fact. Then we would not have to listen to the insane babbling of people claiming that “man’s emissions are warming the oceans”.
KT have muddied (deliberately?) the water here by including in their diagram the text “Absorbed by surface” beside the figure for Back Radiation. This is misleading, because there is no heat absorption, it’s a one way street the other way.
The other key point is that the figures are misleading, because we know what 300+ watts feels like. I’ve got electric heaters, and infra-red lamps in my bathroom. I know exactly how many watts of heat they produce, because I can measure volts and amps in the supply and multiply them. And they heat us because they are at a higher temperature than our bodies at 37C. And if the ground were actually pumping out 390w/m2 in the middle of the night at 15C, we’d notice it.
So it’s not surprising that this subject causes a lot of confusion. Anyone knows that direct sunlight provides a great deal more heat than the atmosphere, which is why people like to strip off on the beach in lower latitudes on holiday, rather than standing naked in their backyard on a wet day in Manchester. But according to the K/T diagram, it looks like we get almost twice as much heat from the air than from the sun.
Everybody who’s ever been outside knows that’s b***s**t.
You make sense. It’s the same with the earth absorbing about 170w/m**2 and radiating about 390w/m**2 along with about 100w/m**2 of sensible and latent heat.
I just can’t get my head around these figures!
Farquhar, in trying to imagine ‘what happens where’, your “flux field” helps. It is easy to imagine such a field of radiation depending on temperature. As soon as surface energy warms greenhouse air above the surface, such a flux field will exist. And the experience of such a flux field (by experiencing a certain temperature) is quite different from the experience of being warmed by Sun rays. Sunlight is different because we can experience Sunlight as going from A to B. Quite different from the general experience of warming from all sides ‘in a field’.
There is another problem with adding the two fluxes LW and SW. Their effects on the surface often are quite different. Sun rays are entering deeply in clear oceans leaving some energy even at depths of 100-200m, but LW radiation does not penetrate deeper than 0.01 mm or so. Another difference is that SW is concentrated on 12 of the 24 hours, while LW radiation is a 24 hour flux for all locations on Earth. SW is depending on season and latitude, LW just on temperature. For climate the two fluxes must have quite different consequences.
I never have a problem with ‘physical forces’ that each have clear characteristics. But I always have problems with ‘forcings’ represented by just a number while I don’t know the physical effects of that number when used in combinations and/or calculations. One 10 W/m2 is quite different in its climatic effect from another 10 W/m2.
Farquar ngold.
I’ll try to diagram this with text:
Height of stack represents energy. 3 Stacks represent 3 spots.
Conservation of Energy:
A B C
A B C
A,B,C
All equal
Conservation of Heat Flow:
A
A B
A,B,C
Stack B-C = Stack A-B
– – –
E=Earth, A=Atmosphere, S=Space
E,A,S <- Sun
Using GHG funny math creates energy out of nothing in order to conserve heat flow!
E
E A
E,A,S
They think this is legit science. Where is there ANY experiment showing source of longwave radiation will rise in intensity to conserve heat flow? Where?
NOWHERE
These people are not interested in reality.
But if they add geothermal, it all makes sense! There is no magical addition of energy from energy trying to escape to space. It's just already there.
OK, the diagrams will be misunderstood by GHG cranks, but real scientists will get it, I think.
Thoughts?
Wim,
I appreciate your post. This offers a viewpoint in agreement with Willis Eschenbach that the values of both downward and upward longwave radiation should be kept in mind. It’s not just about the net value.
Consider the strength and variability of the longwave radiative coupling (my term) of the atmosphere to the surface, as quantified at the surface. To illustrate, I have placed links below to plots of hourly values for all of 2019 for a single gridpoint near where I live in upstate NY, USA. The data is from the ERA5 reanalysis product, by ECMWF. There are 4 values considered: Downward longwave at the surface in W/m^2, Upward longwave from the surface in W/m^2, Net surface upward longwave absorbed into the atmosphere in W/m^2, and Total Column Water in Kg/m^2 (which includes vapor, cloud droplets, and cloud ice crystals.) There is a time series plot for each of these four values, a scatter plot of TCW vs Downward Longwave, and a scatter plot of Downward Longwave vs Upward Longwave.
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
Key comments:
1. This is an illustration using one gridpoint. A plot for another gridpoint on the planet would look a bit different but the key concepts are the same, as noted here.
2. The downward and upward longwave fluxes are large and highly variable. The net upward longwave absorbed into the atmosphere is also highly variable. The net can be less than zero, as a warm humid air mass moves over cool terrain, for example. The scatter plot shows that at most values of upward longwave, there is a wide range of downward longwave values experienced depending on the weather.
3. The variable nature of water vapor and clouds is the big driver of the radiative coupling and thus the “greenhouse effect.”
4. Global averages of various energy flows are nice to know, but do not mean much as to what is happening at a specific location at a point in time. The “climate,” whether evaluated globally, regionally, or locally, is the end product of huge numbers of changes and events of high localized power.
5. So to your point that convective action powerfully moves heat from near the surface to higher altitudes where it more easily escapes to space, I say yes, absolutely! The power of convective weather to do so depends on the strength of the radiative coupling with the surface.
I hope this is helpful.
The upwelling W/m^2 assumes an emissivity of about 1.0 and that is just flat wrong.
The downwelling W/m^2 defies LoT.
Neither one of these in fact exist.
I’m replying to my own comment to correct a misstatement. About the net upward longwave from the surface, it is incorrect to say it is “absorbed into the atmosphere”. Some may end up being absorbed, but the parameter itself is simply the net value of thermal radiation passing through a horizontal plane at the surface. I obtained the values of upward longwave by adding the net value (directly from the reanalysis data) to the downward (also directly from the reanalysis data.) Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more careful with what I was thinking when I wrote my comment.
Replacement link after correction.
?dl=0
To IPCC/WMO/et. al. “surface” measures the AIR temperature 1.5 or 1.8 or whatever ABOVE the actual ground/soil that the measurer has arbitrarily defined.
Some USCRN data sets with an agricultural client base measure and record actual ground/soil/surface temperatures at several depths. (5, 10, 20, 50, 100 cm) Farmers find this data useful for deciding when to plant. I like La Junta, CO for personal reasons as well.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html
Plotting this data reveals some interesting information.
As the surface rotates out into the ISR (That’s how it works.) air temperature and ground temperatures increase in parallel warmed simultaneously by the sun until a little past noon when the air temperature begins to cool rapidly falling much below the ground temperature. The ground cools slowly. The air remains colder than the ground throughout the night until the cycle begins over at dawn. Energy flows from the ground to the air NOT the air to the ground.
Because:
Air has a very low heat capacity (0.24 Btu/lb F) so its temperature swings widely.
Ground has a high heat capacity so its temperature has a moderate swing. And that fluctuation diminishes with depth. Around 100 cm (10 m) the soil temperature is almost constant. kJ/h upwelling from the core?
The real key is RH which absorbs and releases energy through evaporation/condensation.
The air & RH toss energy back & forth during the diurnal cycle like a pair of energy surge tanks.
The water cycle is what makes the climate.
*****
I like figure 2. It’s a graphical representation of my equation for upwelling energy: (conduction+convection+advection+latent+radiation) = all of it.
The moon should be shown at the left end of the graphic which is where the earth would be sans atmosphere. And the premise is w/o the ATMOSPHERE not just w/o GHGs although it really makes no difference. The result is the same – no greenhouse effect.
******
Rost’s version of the heat balance (It’s not a kJ/h heat balance, it’s a power flux balance, W/m^2.) is just a variation of K-T and all the clones.
The GHG “extra” energy loop on the left side of figure 1 still defies LoT: 1) energy upwelling out of a “what if” S-B BB 1.0 emissivity calculation aka nowhere, 2) 100% efficiency perpetual loop, 3) heat to cold w/o work – 2 & 3 contrary to entropy.
Willis,
Here’s your diagram:
It looks like you have 321 W/m^2 emitted upward from the middle of the troposphere, where it’s actually about ~-18C. That’s physically impossible!
It looks like you have 271 W/m^2 absorbed by lowest stratosphere where it’s actually about ~220K. That’s physically possible, but what happened to the difference?
It looks like you have 147 W/m^2 emitted upward from the lowest stratosphere, where it’s actually about ~220K. That’s physically impossible!
It seems your funny math needs a specific setup that is not physically observed. You miss the stratospheric inversion completely, and have over and under representation in different layers of atmosphere.
But the math works! Great job with the algebra!
Physics, not so much.
The entire graphic is garbage.
Any graphic showing the magic unicorn up/down GHG loop is junk.
Philip Mulholland September 15, 2020 at 6:59 am
Thanks, Phillip. There are a number of other ways by which the global average surface temperature can be changed:
• Changes in evaporation rate.
• Changes in wind speed, both peak and average.
• Changes in the pumping rate of warm surface Pacific water poleward by the La Nina pump.
• Changes in hurricane frequency/strength/duration.
• Changes in number/intensity/duration of dust devils.
• Changes in wind speed.
• Changes in number/intensity/duration of thunderstorms.
My first rule of climate is:
No matter how complex I think it is … it’s worse.
Regards,
w.
Oh, yeah. My second rule of climate is:
Everything is connected to everything else … which in turn is connected to everything else … except when it isn’t.
w.
My third rule of climate:
The Earth abides … but the climate responds.
w.
I would say that if anything other than atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or top of atmosphere insolation changes then the convective overturning cycle adjusts to neutralise any imbalance thereby introduced.
Otherwise an atmosphere could not be retained.
We would never be able to measure the miniscule changes caused by variations in radiative gas quantities in the face of substantial solar and ocean induced natural variability.
That proposition is supported by the data for Earth, Venus and Titan and proved by the observation that for Venus that temperature within its atmosphere which correlates with Earth’s surface temperature is much the same after adjusting for distance from the sun.
No effect from radiative gases needs to be considered.
Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”
Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT)
Venus is 70% of the Earth’s distance to the sun, its average solar constant/irradiance is about twice as intense as that of earth, 2,602 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,361 W/m^2.
But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.
The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.
The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.
Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.
So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.
All explained, no need for any S-B BB LWIR RGHE hocus pocus.
Simplest explanation for the observation.
(Venus has a lot of volcanic activity which implies a hot core.)
Nick,
Only ~17 W/m^2 solar reaches Venus surface.
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
Venus is hot because it’s hot. That’s why it can “evaporate” so much gas into the atmo.
The “downwelled IR” is meant to come from CO2 I guess?
A long time ago, during WW2 even, some people actually did spectroscopy of this “downwelled IR”. Science wasn’t so ugly in those days so they called it “sky shine”. They identified the wavelengths and thus the emitters. Was CO2 foremost among them? No. It was absent entirely.
The main sky IR emitter measurable at the surface is nitrogen, as it transiently forms a kind of atomic triplet. Then there are various oxygen species, and hydroxide. But no CO2.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/08/15/twos-company-threes-a-crowd-a-nitrogen-threesome-joins-the-ir-party/
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which exists only because of the atmosphere, cools the earth much like that reflective panel propped up on the dash. And as Rost’s graphic illustrates the more non-radiative processes in play, i.e. conduction, convection, latent, the less radiation and a colder temperature. More atmosphere = less radiation = cooler, less atmosphere = more radiation = warmer. No atmosphere and the earth joins the moon at the left side of the graphic, all radiation and hot^3.
2) The GHG up/down loop demands “extra” energy from somewhere. And since it nets a big fat zero it should simply be erased from the graphic.
3) That somewhere source of “extra” energy is BB radiation upwelling from the surface which I have demonstrated by experiment is not possible. Rost’s graphic also illustrates that as non-radiative processes increase towards the right radiation’s share diminishes. Since emissivity is the ratio of radiation to ALL the energy, emissivity/temperature decreases from left to right and increases from right to left.
RGHE stands or falls on any one of these three points.
All the rest is sound and fury signifying nothing.
Macbeth
Clive Best has a very nice description of the two CO2 warming arguments, the “back radiation” one for public consumption, and the other, tortuously complicated one for scientists who understand that “back radiation” is nonsense.
Clive points out that absorption of IR by CO2 is complete after a path of only 25 meters in air. So the CAGW argument has to resort to arcane details like “shoulders of the CO2 absorption peak” where photons are somehow supposed to wriggle free of this 25 meter total absorption problem and make it all 1000 km
up to space. And stuff about emission heights:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/clive-best-its-a-circular-argument-if-we-assume-co2-warms-the-earth-we-find-that-co2-warms-the-earth/
Wim’s point here about convection is very important. Increasing IR absorption in the atmosphere does not increase heat trapping by radiation. It simply reduces toward insignificance the thermal role of radiation in the atmosphere.
Warmist narrative about atmosphere thermodynamics just go on and on about radiation only. Convection is briefly mentioned only in order to be dismissed. It is an entirely false radiation-dominated paradigm. Heat can be and is transported from the surface to the IR emission height by all the mechanisms that Win mentions (evaporation, convection, conduction and surface radiation giving sensible heat to air).
Yeah, what I’ve already said^4!!! for about 6 years now, since IPCC AR5 in 2014.
Phil, Wikipedia also states “. . . the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters . . .” (ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer ). However, mean free path is not the same as extinction length. In particular, in terms of EM radiation penetration depth, mean free path translates to an “e-folding” length; that is, THEORETICALLY, after 25 m of LWIR propagation into the atmosphere, only 1/2.72 of the radiation intensity will remain . . . in the next 25 m, only 1/(2.27^2) of the original radiation intensity will remain . . . and so on, and so on. See related Beer-Lambert law. After six e-foldings (or about 150 m total penetration depth) into the atmosphere, only about 0.2% of the original radiation intensity will remain.
However, this is all theoretical. It does not account for the fact that some of the absorbing molecules (mainly H2O and CO2) along the optical path length may already be excited by previous absorptions of LWIR photons, and thus unable to absorb more such photons, nor does it take into account the thermalized energy and Doppler shifts in the photon frequencies, as seen by the Maxwell-Boltzmann range of molecular energy for a given average atmospheric temperature, that may preclude ability of a large portion of CO2 molecules to absorb specific LWIR frequencies, as calculated based on just an asserted single mean free path distance value. One has to look into the ensemble statistics of CO2 (and H2O as well) as they actually exist in the real atmosphere to determine the true EM penetration depth of any frequency of LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface.
However, considering the above, I am very confident that no LWIR emitted by Earth’s surface penetrates beyond a distance of 5 km above Earth’s surface. Most of this absorbed LWIR energy is thermalized across all atmospheric constituents . . . only a very tiny fraction is radiated as a photon at the same frequency as the absorbed LWIR photon. And this reduction in original-frequency photon absorption/radiation continues on its exponential decrease across the depth of the troposphere.
IMHO, the biggest “missing part” in most LWIR/atmosphere energy transfer discussions involves the fact that the very rapid molecule-molecule collisions in the troposphere nearest Earth’s surface (on the order of 10^10 to 10^8 collisions per second) rapidly thermalizes absorbed upwelling LWIR with the result that the average temperature of ALL molecules in the atmosphere is raised slightly, and then ALL these molecules themselves radiate thermal energy in discrete spectral lines having peak intensities that generally follow a S-B blackbody radiation profile.
“However, considering the above, I am very confident that no LWIR emitted by Earth’s surface penetrates beyond a distance of 5 km above Earth’s surface”
Gordon,
Our analysis of the CERES data for the Hadley cell suggests a value of 3.2 km for the descending air in the Horse Latitudes and 4.8 km in general (300 W/m^2) for the non-convection part of the tropics, so we are in the same ball park.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/19/calibrating-the-ceres-image-of-the-earths-radiant-emission-to-space/
Phillip,
Thanks 10^6 for that confirmation! I had not not looked deeply into the CERES data, nor had I remembered the May 2019 WUWT article.
I always use J.T Houghton, Physics of Atmospheres to help in areas I don’t understand. Fig 2.5 shows a curve of Radiative Equilibrium Temperature plotted against altitude and the line which shows the mean adiabatic Lapse rate temperature draw through the surface temperature. The lines cross at the Tropopause indicating a troposphere dominated by convection below a stratosphere in approximate radiative equilibrium. I guess this is why they call it the Troposphere. The thrust of this article is thus correct, convection dominates radiation in the troposphere.
The most recent edition (the 3rd) of “The Physics of Atmospheres” was made in March 2002.
There is some danger in using data that is 18 years old, given the rate of progression in science, particular atmospheric science.
Not that Houghton’s data and conclusions are necessarily wrong, but just saying . . .
Sorry, by that I mean the radiative equilibrium temp is always below the adiabatic lapse rate temp in the troposphere.
A little help requested here
Heat is generated in the earths core.
If the sun was not there the earth would still have a temperature due to its innate heat.
Of 35 K, only – 237 C.
Produced by “The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW) “. This heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface.
Dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.
–
So the innate or natural temperature of the earth is around 35K.
This raises an interesting question.
Re effective radiation level. The equations we are given from the GHG effectAnd the energy budgets.
Treat the earth as a 510,000,000 sq K surface black body, that is it emits all the radiation it receives.
But this treats the earth as a black body having no temperature of its own .
The rationale for this is that the earths contribution is only 0.3%.
But this is might be an important criteria missing from the Trembath diagrams of Earths energy balance.
Now maybe the Stefan Boltzmann energy /temp means it is not important.
On the other hand the 35 K starting temperature given by the earth matches the GHG effect.
True the energy input is very small.
But the temperature of the whole earth is constantly putting that small amount of energy into the atmosphere and not from the sun.
Does it negate the need for a GHG effect in any small way.
Does it mean ECS is a lot lower because over a thousand years it counteracts the need for CO2 to have a long lag.
Nikolov and Kramm and UCLA Diviner acknowledge that without an atmosphere (or GHGs) the earth would be much like the moon with a lit side S-B maximum equilibrium temperature of about 400 K based on 1,368 W/m^2.
Near earth space is not 5 K, it’s 400 K.
There is a temperature gradient between the core and surface similar to the gradient between the inside and outside of an insulated house.
And the governing equation is: Q = 1/R * A *(Tcore – Tsurf).
The thermal resistance of the solid and liquid surrounding the core is not simple.
‘The dominant factor in surface cooling is convection, responsible for the removal of more than three quarters of the surface’s energy.’
Correct BUT only for the sunlit side.
On the unlit side the dominant factor in surface WARMING is convection which adds back to the surface the same amount of kinetic energy as was taken upwards in potential form on the lit side.
For a rotating planet with oceans that vary the rate of heat loss the atmospheric circulation between the lit and unlit sides jumbles up the two processes but on average that is the truth of it.
The two processes net out to zero but they introduce a delay in the emission of incoming solar energy back to space and that is what raises surface temperature for planets with atmospheres.
Philip Mulholland and I have published several papers on the issue, many of which were first trawled in front of readers here thanks to Anthony.
There has been no effective rebuttal to anything that we propose and our work has predictive value for various planets with atmospheres thick enough to support consistent convective overturning. Our papers on Venus, Earth and Titan demonstrate the validity of our basic proposition that surface warming is a consequence of convective overturning and not radiative gases.
The lit side gets all the input.
The entire surface loses 24/7.
Set your furnace on a 12 hour timer.
It has to deliver enough heat in that 12 hours to maintain a comfortable average for 24.
Any HVAC engineer can ‘splain how they would size a furnace/AC to do that.
Gozintaz in 12 hours = gozoutaz over 24.
And figure in some thermal storage (oceans, clouds, air, RH, ground) for thermal inertia aka “delay.”
The surface heat converted to potential energy in the ascent cannot be lost to space because potential energy is not heat and cannot be radiated.
It can only be radiated out to space by radiative gases during descent or from the surface upon arrival and only after the potential energy has been converted back to heat during the descent.
My post hasn’t appeared so I’ll try again.
‘The dominant factor in surface cooling is convection, responsible for the removal of more than three quarters of the surface’s energy.’
Correct BUT only for the sunlit side.
On the unlit side the dominant factor in surface WARMING is convection which adds back to the surface the same amount of kinetic energy as was taken upwards in potential form on the lit side.
For a rotating planet with oceans that vary the rate of heat loss the atmospheric circulation between the lit and unlit sides jumbles up the two processes but on average that is the truth of it.
The two processes net out to zero but they introduce a delay in the emission of incoming solar energy back to space and that is what raises surface temperature for planets with atmospheres.
Philip Mulholland and I have published several papers on the issue, many of which were first trawled in front of readers here thanks to Anthony.
There has been no effective rebuttal to anything that we propose and our work has predictive value for various planets with atmospheres thick enough to support consistent convective overturning. Our papers on Venus, Earth and Titan demonstrate the validity of our basic proposition that surface warming is a consequence of convective overturning and not radiative gases.
I would say that if anything other than atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or top of atmosphere insolation changes then the convective overturning cycle adjusts to neutralise any imbalance thereby introduced.
Otherwise an atmosphere could not be retained.
We would never be able to measure the miniscule changes caused by variations in radiative gas quantities in the face of substantial solar and ocean induced natural variability.
That proposition is supported by the data for Earth, Venus and Titan and proved by the observation that for Venus that temperature within its atmosphere which correlates with Earth’s surface temperature is much the same after adjusting for distance from the sun.
No effect from radiative gases needs to be considered.
This 2014 analysis of the Trenberth cartoon is relevant here:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/correcting-the-kiehl-trenberth-energy-budget/
It describes the error regarding latent heat that Wim has noticed and proposes the appropriate solution by inserting heat from descending air to remove any need for a heating effect from back radiation whilst keeping the budget balanced.
“…heat from descending air…”
Odd, I thought hot air ascended?
Rising air is warmer than the surroundings and descending air starts off at the same temperature as its surroundings.
Once it starts to descend, adiabatic heating from compression then makes it warmer than its surroundings but it can’t rise again because it is being forced down by rising air elsewhere.
It then stays warmer than its surroundings all the way down and thus delivers additional kinetic energy to the surface when the descent completes.
Read about adiabatic ascent and descent.
“…adiabatic heating from compression then makes it warmer than its surroundings…”
Maybe in a closed system which the atmosphere is not.
PV = nRT describes a thermal state, the relationship between n, P, V, T.
Similar to an industrial compress air system any heat created is promptly lost to the open system surroundings.
Any industrial compressed air system offers plenty of examples.
Q = 1/R * A * dT is thermal process that sufficiently explains the temperature difference.
Thermal resistance = dT, electrical resistance = dV, hydraulic resistance = dP.
“Maybe in a closed system which the atmosphere is not.”
Nick,
A planetary atmosphere is most definitely a closed system.
The planetary surface area has a defined and measurable quantity.
The mass of the atmosphere is a fixed and measurable quantity.
The planetary gravitational field is a fixed constraining force.
The planetary rotation rate is also a constraining feature on atmospheric motion.
The atmosphere has a base, it has a top and it has sides (aka fronts). The sides are the internal dynamic boundaries caused by planetary rotation.
Forced descent is a real feature of atmospheric circulation on a rotating globe.
If the atmosphere was just an open system we would not be able to identify measure and describe atmospheric features with persistent structure and global in-homogeneity such as the Hadley cell.
By definition an isolated system does not allow for the interchange of either matter or energy with the surroundings.
By definition a closed system does not allow for the interchange of matter with the surroundings but does allow energy to crossover.
By definition an open system allows for the interchange of both matter and energy with the surroundings.
The atmosphere is, by definition, an open system.
Which is all very interesting – and moot because:
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which only exists because of the atmosphere, cools the earth compared to no atmosphere. Remove the atmosphere and the earth becomes much like the moon.
2) The GHG “extra” energy loop must be powered by BB LWIR upwelling “extra” energy from the surface.
3) Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes (cond, conv, latent) of the contiguous atmospheric molecule such BB upwelling of “extra” energy is not possible. (Rost Figure 2)
Thermodynamics does not allow for “extra” energy.
1+2+3=0 RGHE+0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW
“By definition an open system allows for the interchange of both matter and energy with the surroundings.”
Nick
You are not thinking at the correct scale.
The atmosphere is clearly a mass conserved system.
W/ Gt of incoming space dust annually.
Meteors.
Comets.
There is mass in space and on the moon that is no longer on earth.
Once established, a convective overturning cycle is a closed system because the amount of KE converted to PE always matches the amount of PE converted to KE.
The observed phenomenon of hydrostatic equilibrium proves that to be the case.
No hydrostatic equilibrium over the long term means no atmosphere.
If energy is also constrained it’s an isolated system not closed.
The surface heat converted to potential energy in the ascent cannot be lost to space because potential energy is not heat and cannot be radiated.
It can only be radiated out to space by radiative gases during descent or from the surface upon arrival and only after the potential energy has been converted back to heat during the descent.