Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In my previous posts, yclept “Greenhouse Efficiency” and “The Multiplier”, I described a metric I’d developed to look at how successful the very poorly named “greenhouse effect” was at warming the surface. The metric was the upwelling surface longwave radiation (in watts per square meter, W/m2) divided by the solar power actually absorbed by the system (solar minus albedo reflections).
And of course, since radiation emitted by an object can be used to determine the temperature, this metric also measures how efficiently the incoming sunshine is converted to surface temperature.
Here’s how that metric has changed over time, as discussed in my two previous posts.
Figure 1. Greenhouse multiplier. The multiplier is calculated as upwelling longwave surface radiation divided by incoming solar radiation (after albedo reflections). A multiplier of 2 would mean that the surface would be radiating two W/m2 of energy for each one W/m2 of solar energy actually entering the system. This shows that the greenhouse has increased the incoming solar radiation by about two-thirds, as measured at the surface.
I got to thinking about that, and after a while I realized that that doesn’t tell the whole story. I realized that the answer was distorted because I hadn’t included advection.
Advection is the horizontal transport of heat. Generally, it’s in the form of moving ocean and atmosphere. It generally flows, as you might expect, from warm to cold—from the equator to the poles. Here’s a map showing the average transport, both export (red) and import (blue) of power.
Figure 2. Advection (horizontal transport) of power from the tropics to the poles.
The issue with not including advection comes up especially in the polar regions. There, a large amount of the power input is from advection, and little is from sunlight. So it looks as thought the power in the sunlight is highly multiplied, but it’s not—the extra power is from advected atmosphere and ocean.
Since I wanted a measure of the total watts out divided by watts in, the true multiplier, I had to include the advected energy. Since the net energy advected is about zero, I didn’t expect it would change the overall average multiplier by much. But I did expect it to be more accurate on a gridcell-by-gridcell basis since it was no longer missing the advected energy.
And indeed, this was the result. Figure 3 shows the earlier calculations as in Figure 1 (blue), plus the calculation including the advected energy (red).
Figure 3. A comparison of the two metrics, which either include (red) or omit (blue) the advection.
Now, there are some interesting things about this figure.
First, as I’d hoped, regarding the standard deviation (SD) of the detrended results, it is smaller when we include the advected power. This means they cluster more tightly around the trend line. The SD of the original method (blue) is 0.0040, and of the method including advection (red), it’s 0.0026.
Including the advection also corrects the problems at the poles which import copious power, and the problems at the tropics, which export the same.
Figure 4. Average multiplier, both with (red) and without (blue) the advection. Average CERES data, Mar 2000 to Feb 2021
I love the surprises of science. The surprise in this one for me was that once we’ve included the effects of advection, the multiplier is pretty much equal from the North Pole down to the north tip of Antarctica.
Next, a small digression. Ramanathan pointed out that we can measure the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” directly. It is the amount of upwelling longwave power absorbed by the clouds, aerosols, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Note that the power absorbed ends up back at the earth’s surface.
The size of the “greenhouse effect” is measured as the upwelling longwave at the surface minus the upwelling longwave at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The difference between the two is the “greenhouse effect”, in watts per square meter.
Here’s the most surprising oddity. It turns out that when we include advection in our surface power changes, the new multiplier is exactly equal to one plus the greenhouse effect (measured as above) divided by available solar energy. Math in the footnotes.
And this lets us understand what is happening in Figure 2. The blue trend is the change in surface upwelling per unit of incoming energy. This is measured above in W/m2, but it can be converted using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the surface temperature. That multiplier has been decreasing.
The red trend is the trend of the change in total surface power, not just the radiation but the advection as well, per unit of incoming energy. That multiplier has been increasing as we’d expect given increasing levels of CO2.
And that is very interesting. It shows that overall, increasing greenhouse gases increase the amount of downwelling radiation per unit of incoming solar power. And in fact, they are increasing at the rate expected from the increasing concentration of CO2. But that’s not what is expected overall.
Figure 6. Changes in the efficiency of the “greenhouse effect”, as measured by the multiplier.
The first reason that the increase is less than expected is that there are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 (methane, N20, chlorofluorocarbons). So with those other gases, the increase in greenhouse efficiency as measured by the multiplier should have been more than it actually has been.
There is also the purported positive cloud feedback and the water vapor feedback. Like the effect of other greenhouse gases, these should also have increased the multiplier.
So it appears that there are unknown countervailing forces preventing a larger increase in greenhouse efficiency despite increases in a variety of greenhouse gases. However, the net of all of these is a slight increase in greenhouse efficiency.
But curiously, this is counterbalanced by a reduction (per unit of incoming solar power) in the amount of increase in surface temperatures, along with a corresponding increase in the advection.
And the net result of the two is that in Figure 2 the multiplier shown by the blue line (how efficiently the system multiplies the incoming energy into surface temperature) is trending down, despite the increasing efficiency of the “greenhouse effect” due to increasing GHGs as shown by the red line.
“Simple physics”?
I don’t think so.
w.
MATH: Here are the equations showing that
surface upwelling + advection / available solar
is equal to
one plus the greenhouse effect (as defined by Ramanathan) / available solar.
Where:
- SOLAR = TOA incoming solar power
- SWtoa = Upwelling (reflected) shortwave measured at the top of the atmosphere
- LWtoa = Upwelling (emitted) longwave measured at the top of the atmosphere
- LWsurfup = Upwelling longwave at the surface
Advection is measured as the amount of solar power (shortwave) entering the gridcell (SOLAR) minus the amount of radiated power leaving the gridcell to space (SWtoa + LWtoa). The difference must be advected, except for a very small fraction that raises or lowers the surface temperature and can be neglected at this level of analysis.
My Usual Note: When you comment PLEASE quote the exact words you’re discussing. I can defend my own ideas. I can’t defend someone else’s random claim about what they think I said.
This is measured above in W/m2, but it can be converted using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the surface temperature.
≠=========
Don’t agree. As others have also noted because SB is a power function and avg T is linear, you can only get a unique answer in one direction. From T to w/m2. In the reverse direction many different values of avg(T) will yield the same w/m2 depending upon variance across the temperature grid.
Simply solving the S-B equation in the reverse direction implies zero variance in T across the planet, which is clearly not the case.
The exception would be to solve the S-B equation in reverse at each grid square, but even that assumes zero variance within each square.
Because much of the data has already been averaged, the true variance of the underlying data is hidden. Given the problems in converting W/M2 to avg(T) due to vatiance it is quite possible much of the radiation budget is suspect.
The S-B equation solved in reverse does not yield avg(T) as one might expect. It yields max(T) or max(avg(T)) depending on the data..
RickWill
Reply to
Kevin kilty
September 17, 2022 6:56 pm
I expect the Chatelier Principle of equilibrium is a special case of the principle of least action, which can be applied to any system.
======
Rick I think you have hit upon sonething that has so far been overlooked.
Thernodynamics is also governed by the same principle. Surface warming is only 1 of many courses of action available with increased CO2. It should be possible to calculate what action the climate system will take. Has this been done?
The climate system is a complex box to analyse from the inside. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is just one of the many changes changes occurring and I cannot see any prospect of it making a difference to the changes already occurring due to orbital changes, distribution of land and water and changes in biomass mostly due to CO2 enhancing growth.
There is a concept that was conceived by the late, great NASA/GISS physicist Michael Mishchenko based on first principle; meaning solving Maxwell’s equations for Earth’s energy budget. It is set out in a 2016 paper. This taken from the abstract:
The idea here is that they work outside the climate box. Measure energy flux, either in or out, simultaneously over enough locations beyond the atmosphere and frequently enough to build a complete picture.
Although this would give insight into the energy budget, it still does not give any real insight to what is happening on and under the surface.
The oceans are warming as to be expected when the water cycle slows down while the peak solar intensity moves northward. More ocean is reaching the 30C temperature limit.
So observing more heat being retained in the climate system is not due to CO2. It is due to changing solar intensity relative to land and water.
Proof S-B not reliable in reverse. Had a psychedelic v-dub van with same problem.
Assume a 2 grid square earth. Use a simplified S-B. W/m2 = t^4
Earth 1. t1=2, t2=2, avg t=2
W/m2 = 32
Earth 2. t1=0, t2=2.38, avg t=1.19
W/m2 = 32
Same w/m2, different average T. Which one is correct? What happens when you split squares even finer?
Quoting from my heat transfer book, “..,the S-B law of thermal radiation…”. It is only valid for thermal radiation. Thermal radiation is a result of temperature difference. So until temperatures are shown in all the charts above it is all hocum.
Is S-B good for gases?
There is a section dealing with gases. So with the caveats in the book the answer is yes. However, when I put forth the emissivity of CO2 that is in the .004 region people object or don’t grasp the significance.
Willis, while the trend is amall I think your data shows something very important.
See RickWill
Reply to
Kevin kilty
September 17, 2022
Principle of least action.
What i see in fig 5 is that principle in action. Down welling efficiency is not increasing as expected. Rather advection is increasing.
the net energy advected is about zero
=========
This may not be so simple. The temperature variance is reduced which will reduce total outgoing radiation. The planet must warm on average to restore the radiative balance.
Thus a change in advecrion changes average temperature if outgoing radiation is to remain unchanged. This is independent of the GHG effect and thus greenhouse effect must be smaller than assumed.
There would be no advection in the scenario used. All the earth receives 240 W/m^2. The entire earth then would have same temp. No advection would take place.
You are in fact correct mathematically because a variance of zero implies the surface and air are all the same temperature.
The problem with averages…
An interesting series of posts Willis!
Here is where I get confused. The GHE tells me that water vapor heats the earth’s surface.
Your emerging phenomena (thunderstorms) are cooling mechanisms, which are driven by water vapor and convection. ( I’m not sure you can separate the two). Do you see a contradiction here?
Why is the floor of the Grand Cayon 10 degrees hotter than the rim when it gets 70% less solar than the rim?
I always scratch my head when I see energy budget graphs that don’t net out LWIR. The latent heat number typically shown is a net number.
I never read the Steel Shell post until today. I scrolled through the huge number of comments wondering if someone had asked what I was wondering about. They did. What happens if we shrink the steel shell to the surface? My intuition is that it would radiate at 235, the same as the surface. What if you let the size of the shell expand, what happens? It seems to me that your 470 surface equilibrium because of back radiation would happen for an arbitrarily small increase in the shell size. This seems strange to me. What happens as the size of the steel shell goes to infinity?
I always thought that 2 objects of the same temperature exchange no net radiation. In effect, a standing wave is created where no energy is exchanged.
Given where things stand in society, arguing against the forced energy transition because there is no runaway warming using the alarmist’s data and theory is likely the right approach. I have always been bothered by the inconsistency between the gas laws and the GHE. Given that Prof Happer has forgotten more than I will ever know and he believes in the GHE makes me think that I am missing something.
While it is far from settled, it is interesting that new questions have been raised about the Big Bang as data from the James Webb comes in.
A thought experiment. If the molecular weight of the atmosphere was increased by 1% would it make a difference to surface temperatures if the increase came from homonuclear diatomics (O2 and N2) verse Polyatomics (H2O, CO2, etc)
The mass of the atmosphere alters the surface temperature. As does the buoyancy of water vapour in the atmosphere.
The most important atmospheric process is its ability to form a level of free convection. Without that, Earth would be a snowball. Everything would be ice. Formation of an LFC guarantees convective instability, which guarantees clear skies occur over oceans.
An LFC can reliably form above a surface at 15C. That is the point where you will observe clouds shift from dull and listless to more lively and some popping.
Below 15C it is possible for the atmosphere to remain fully saturated because it does not partition. Above 15C, saturation only occurs at the point of convective instability; often referred to as cloudburst. And is temporary. The thick cumulonimbus cloud gives way to high altitude cirrus cloud that persists for longer as a function of surface temperature. That cloud persistence regulates the sunlight to the surface.
The attached shows the relative humidity for ocean 1×1 degree grids for March 2022. The key observation is that no surface warmer than 15C every remains saturated. The super saturated locations are more likely the result of monthly averages and air movements than being perpetually saturated. Also the RH above 27C is likely lower than reality because satellites have difficulty penetrating thick cloud. And cloud persistence increases dramatically above 27C.
The surface limit of 30C is due to the LFC getting very close to the altitude of freezing because clouds forming above freezing are highly reflective and if the LFC is near freezing than higher reflective clouds persist for most of the recharge cycle.
It is possible to determine the altitude of the LFC based on the buoyancy of water vapour in the atmosphere. Any factor that alters the water buoyancy relative to the altitude of freezing in the atmosphere will alter the surface temperature. With current atmospheric mass, the surface can only reach 30C before the shutters prevent further surface heat input.
yclept, handy scrabble word. WTF ?
Still present in Scots – a Clipe is a Snitch.
@Wills Please just your call your work an essay.
Philip, an essay is what some English professor writes after engaging in much deep thought.
I put FAR too much math, computer time, logic, and scientific research into my analyses to ever call them “essays”.
w.
yclept – you cannot let eschenbach proselytize thermodynamics
Dear god, leitmotif, could you possibly get more childish? This is what you want your epitaph to be, “He spent his life standing on tiptoe unsuccessfully trying to bite another man’s ankles”?
Look, if you’re so damn brilliant, how about YOU put up the time and the computer code and the scientific research to write something yourself?
Or you could continue to stand around crying and whining with thousands of folks laughing at your childishness …
Your choice.
w.
at first I thought you were saying that the energy out was greater than the energy in. I now understand that you are saying the rate of radiant flux out is greater than the rate of radiant flux in
Willis wrote:”Eventually it will reach a temperature where radiative heat loss out = heat in, and it won’t warm at all.”
≠====!!!!!!
Willis if the energy required to heat an object was not relatively constant, there would be no property “specific heat”. The value would be meaningless because it would vary widely with temperature.
in your example you have neglected to consider that equilibrium time is not just “eventually”. Equilibrium time must vary such that specific heat remains relatively constant. More power, less time, same energy. Less power, more time, same energy.
There are only two ways to change the energy content of a system, ( in this case the earth land oceans and atmosphere) in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in the the residence time of the energy within the system.
A combination of both would be a third way.
Indeed, change the w/l of the input, and you change the residence time. Change the materials encountered, and you change the residence time.
There us no reason both cannot happen at the same time. Every argument as to earth’s GMT, is a residence time and or a input solar debate. CO2 increases residence time of some solar, yet high CO2 can also expedite or release energy to space that a non GHG would keep in the atmosphere.
A complicated system which I don’t think is adequately addressed by an snapshot of averages.
don’t think is adequately addressed by an snapshot of averages.
==========
Dont understand why anyone would down vote that statement.
Averages are like DC power. But the solar heating cycles, like AC piwer.
AC and DC behave very differently.
Nowhere is this addressed.
The daily temperature curve is a DC signal with a psuedo-sinusoidal signal superimposed (sine wave during the day and an exponential decay during the night). The average temperature is not (Tmax + Tmin)/2. The rms (power) value is not (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
The daily temperature curve is related to a whole host of factors that are ignored by trying to use average values of any of these factors. The fact that Tmax doesn’t occur at the point of time when the sun is directly overhead is proof of that.
It’s my opinion that using average flux values is misleading. What should be used are the integrals of the flux values over time. This would take into account the cyclical nature and time offsets of many of these factors.
There are trolls on here that always downvote me just because I keep on pointing out the obvious problems with climate science methods today. Ce le vie!
Willis wrote:
“So if we have a container of 1kg of water sitting on a table and we add 1 kcalorie of constant heat flux to it, it will never stop getting hotter?”
========
There are 0 kcals in heat flux, so the question is a nonsense.
Plot radiation in and out over time. This is kcals. The area between the curves is the energy absorbed/released to heat or cool the object.
From observation this energy is relatively independent of the temperature of the object – which surprises many, apparently.
.
I am going to try this one more time, about the 1st and 2nd Laws. 1st Law! The amount of energy that existed before an energy transfer is the same as the amount that exists after an energy transfer. 2nd Law! Heat flows from warm things to cooler things and never ever the other way.
I will not discuss the Mass Defect of a Nuclear Reaction here, 9000 kg/sec as happens in the Sun, of which we on Planet Earth receive 1/2-Billionth
Now we must define “Warming.” This word means that the temperature of an object increases, or else the two laws above are meaningless. Note that this does not include Cooling More Slowly!!!
So, concerning the Sun and the Sky, we all feel the heat from Father Sol, but none of us ever feel Warmed by the Sky.
You tell me. Discern and Discuss.
Once again, you should try some schooling. This is not intuitive but verified by your utility bill.
And there has been much discussion here about what happens when radiation from a cool object, such as the atmosphere of the Earth, reaches a slightly warmer object, such as dirt or water at the surface of the Earth. Since there is rarely money involved in such a puny transfer, I had to look it up. Radiation from a cooler object reaching a warmer is simply reflected. You can say that the photons do not know at what temperature they were radiated, but they do, cannot warm a warmer object.
Give this up Willis, do not beat a dead horse.
Michael Moon
And there has been much discussion here about what happens when radiation from a cool object, such as the atmosphere of the Earth, reaches a slightly warmer object, such as dirt or water at the surface of the Earth.
“Radiation from a cooler object reaching a warmer is simply reflected.”
–
Cannot stop people putting up bad science but can complain about it.
Michael.
You obviously recognise some of the many flaws in your argument else you would not have to resort to tricks to overcome them.
Here the trick is to claim reflection as a mechanism to deny the fact that warm objects do receive EM radiation.
But only for “ warmer” objects.
consider a mirror receiving radiation that it can reflect, hot or cold, The mirror will reflect it whatever temperature it is because it is a mirror, not because of its innate heat.
consider the effect of the action you claim.
The temperature of the object you claim is hot and therefore reflecting colder energy as well as emitting warmer energy itself now causes your thermometer a problem .
It become hotter to you even though it has “reflected”, your words, some energy so now the thermometer must read two energy inputs and tell you your warm object is even warmer!
I get the idea that a hot object must cool and a warm object must heat up.
I get the idea that you can summate the two energy flows in opposite directions and claim there is only one energy flow observed.
But just because the second is true does not make the first false.
In actual fact each warm object is actually radiating energy in all directions.
Every point around them has an energy level which is the combined temperature of the two warm objects.
There can be no physical scientific reason to say that this energy equation suddenly ceases to exist at the surface of a warmer object.
Enjoy your day.
angech the sophist.
Thank you.
Or would you prefer Willis Cheerleader?
Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Cold heats hot?
Leitmotif
Cold heats hot is nonsense?
True
Definitions matter , do they not?
Cold is the absence of energy.
Hot is having energy.
When two objects both have energy they are no longer cold.
Both will transfer energy to a cold object ( one lacking any energy).
Now if both warm objects will heat up a cold object they must both radiate energy to a cold body
So both objects must radiate energy at each other as well.
If yo bothered to make each a heat source but one hotter than the other.
Note, neither is cold, they both have energy.
And you care to do the maths.
Not that you have shown any such care to date.
You will find that both warm objects will be warmer than their original temperatures.
The less warm body heats the warmer body and vice versa.
A cold body is only one at absolute zero.
All warm bodies have energy which they have to radiate and receive, absorb and remit.
Objects at energy level 1 can’t absorb photons at energy level zero.
There are only 3 things that can happen to a photon once it encounters a surface. Those are absorption, transmission, or reflection. Reflection seems a reasonable answer. There is no way of telling a reflected photon from an emitted one.
Please do an S-B equation to show your work. Especially when you multiply by zero and still get warming somewhere.
mkelly September 19, 2022 6:41 am
You want S-B equation? We got S-B equation:
Radiation Heat Transfer Davood Domairry Ganji, … Amin Sedighiamiri, in Nonlinear Systems in Heat Transfer, 2018
This is the simplest two-body radiation heat transfer implementation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Note that the temperatures of BOTH the warmer and cooler objects are needed to determine the heat transfer.
And note that if your false claim that “Radiation from a cooler object reaching a warmer is simply reflected.” were somehow true, that equation simply wouldn’t work—the temperature of the cooler object would be immaterial.
Folks, there are a lot of untrue claims going on out here on the web. The idea that a warm object magically reflects photons is one of them. In fact, a photon is either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected by an object that it hits, REGARDLESS of the temperature of the object it hits.
And on a physical basis, how on earth is a photon going to determine the temperature of whatever it hits? Do they carry tiny thermometers?
w.
That’s not the S-B equation, Willis. That’s your back radiation S-B equation.
The S-B equation is about the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature into a sink at zero Kelvin.
Sophists like you invented the second black body.
Even Wiki disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Here is where I find it confusing. The net rate heat transfer, q, is positive if T1 is greater than T2. How does T1 increase without a net energy flow increase? I don’t think anyone believes a warm object magically reflects photons. Heck, I’m not even sure the photon is a useful concept. I think what is in question is how to interpret the 33 degrees that iscalled the GHE.
I think what we can all agree on is that NASA is failing at its job of informing on greenhouse gases. This is directly from their website
Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor. (Water vapor, which responds physically or chemically to changes in temperature, is called a “feedback.”) Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.
q = s A(T1^4 – T2^4)
This seems problematic
For example, if we increase the size of shell 2 to infinity, it will not affect shell 1 regardless of temperature.
That was the trivial example.
how on earth is a photon going to determine the temperature of whatever it hits
===========
Quantum physics. The photon energy must match the electron orbital energies. Fractional interactions are not permitted.
Thinking more on this it may be more gasses that are limited in the absorbtion frequencies. Been more than 50 years since I studied this.
“Objects at energy level 1 can’t absorb photons at energy level zero”
What the heck is an object at energy level 1?
Why can it not accept a photon?
How can a photon not have energy?
What is a surface in regard to a photon?
How does reflection work anyway?
Since it breaks the rules of physics it is actually not reasonable.
In regard to warming somewhere I could point to the example of a magnifying glass that causes extreme heating in a concentrated area yet the energy input to that general area from the sun does not have to vary one iota.
Is the surface temperature at that spot a true temperature?
Yes.
What that is to indicate to you is that the temperature of a specific layer of air can vary immensely depending on its GHG load.
Yet the energy in and out of that region remains as constant as the heat source it has due to SB.
Does that help?
What gets reflected merely replaces what was lost in the first place. The mirror isn’t on fire thus creating energy to radiate. The only thing CO2 can do is slow down cooling. If the nighttime earth was cooling down to t1 before the 1900’s, CO2 might only allow it to cool down to t1+ Δ today. Thus we would see the Tmin go up which would cause Tavg to go up as well. That same CO2 acts as a partial shield to the daytime sun’s energy thus keeping Tmax during the day from going up because of an increased Tmin.
Which really does describe what we are seeing today. The true fraud is the lie being pushed that the earth is going to turn into a cinder if something isn’t done.
To me the earth is like an old steam engine. Insulate the boiler and the minimum steam pressure won’t go down as fast and will stay at a higher level but it won’t affect the max pressure much if at all. You can only increase max pressure with a larger fire. And since nothing in the earth’s biosphere is on fire the only fire is from the sun. Unless the sun’s fire goes up the max temp on the earth won’t go up. The only real question is whether a higher minimum pressure in the steam engine (i.e. higher Tmin) is a problem!
Tim Gorman
” The mirror isn’t on fire thus creating energy to radiate”
Wise words.
Wills,
Self evidently the solid surface of the zonally rotating Earth cannot translate energy from the equator to the poles. All of this meridional energy transport is done by the mobile fluids of the water in the oceans and the air in the atmosphere.
Climatology is based on the mass-motion physics of fluids in the presence of a gravity field, these are the domains of Oceanography and Meteorology and not domain of Radiative Physics.
Please see our latest essay here:
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere
Philip, while difficult to read on my phone I believe you are making many of the same points as I have questioned.
The radiative greenhouse affect takes energy that would normally be radiated to space and returns it to the surface, warming the planet.
However, once you consider the earth is not a flat disk you realize that there are non radiative processes that do the same thing. Warm the surface with energy that would othwise escape to space.
These other processes are not accounted for in the radiative model which means that the radiative greenhouse effect must be smaller than calculated.
The process of discover is slow. To me the atmospheric lapse rate has not been give proper recognition in the role is plays in determining surface temperatures.
It is too much of a coincidence that 500mb altitude is also effective emissions height. This locks insolation to surface temp via lapse rate and atmospheric height.
Ferd, The tables are loaded as image files into Word. I will go back to ascii and try to fix that.
I always have trouble reading pdf’s from my phone.
What is needed is a free pdf reader that has browser like display capability.
The fixed format pdf eventually gets too small as the screen size shrinks.
There is likely a reader out there that does it.
Hi Philip
I just switched to adobe android liquid mode and so far looks good. I’m using a download from your original link
Thanks
If you are going to switch tables I would recommend an additional link to allow quick testing.
ferdberple
Philip, while difficult to read on my phone I believe you are making many of the same points as I have questioned.
“The radiative greenhouse affect takes energy that would normally be radiated to space and returns it to the surface, warming the planet.”
Ferd,
At any one time the body is radiating to space the energy incoming to it.
There is no normally here as there is GHG here.
The surface is irretrievably changed.
With the GHG present the pathway in and out is such that the same amount of energy is always being radiated out of the whole body overall.
The proof of that being without that fact SB does not work.
The fact that we attribute temperature to retained energy rather than energy passing through seems logical on the surface but practically has to be wrong somehow.
that the same amount of energy is always being radiated out of the whole body overall.
========
Agreed. The problem is that earth is radiating from 5+ km effective altitude. Solar heating is AC not DC. We live in a layered, moving, moist heat conductive mass 5km under the effective surface.
After many simplifying assumptions climate sciences arrives at the correct answer to 1 part in 600 precision. Having known the answer in advance.
Ferd,
That is really good. (I may steal it).
Consider this:
As 71% of the planet’s surface is covered by ocean water with a basal temperature of 4 Celsius then where is the global warming?
I have now reloaded in to the Word document all of the image files from Excel as ASCII (Sizing Excel tables in Word is a real pain but the learning was useful).
I spotted a few more typos and fixed these in this 19 Sept PDF version on Research Gate.
How does it look now?
(p.s. I don’t own a surveillance ‘phone so I can’t this check myself).
Philip Mulholland
Reply to
ferdberple
That is really good.
I agree
Hi Philip,
Did a quick read of your paper. It bothers me a lot that climate science makes a whole series of simplifying assumptions in their models, ignore variance and arrive at the right answer. 15C. So I would not be concerned to hit 15C.
For me, in a planet with an atmisphere, energy cannot tell if it is moved via radiation, conduction, convection, advection, etc, etc, etc.
So why is climate science hung up on back radiation. All this does is take energy that would escape to space and return it to the surface. The same can be shown for any process that moves energy. Gotta run.
Ferd
I changed the tables to ascii, but the process fell over at Table 10 on page 15.
So, for public viewing I have switched back to the first file I loaded on to Research Gate.
Our key message is Figure 3 on page 11. The back-radiation loop of the standard radiative physics model is actually our adiabatic mass motion convection loop (aka the Hadley Cell) of meteorology.
thus helping explain why we’ve been in an Ice Age since the all-important Antarctic isolation
makes sense that advection would increase, another thermostat like tropical thunderstorm frequency
makes sense that advection would increase, another thermostat like tropical thunderstorm frequency
============
I woulg go further and say that it is the global thermostat, by controlling temperature variance.
The non-linearity between temperature and radiation means that for any given radiative balance you can change the average temperature without changing the radiation. All you need do is change the variance in temperature. And this variance is controlled by advection, not by CO2
I demonstrated the math behind this earlier in the post. I belive this is likely what Willis has discovered in his multiplier and what Philip has discovered in his model.
q = s A(T1^4 – T2^4)
==============
This is an interesting equation. Say we doubled the size of shell 2. Offhand that would give us 8 times the radiative surface. Now leave the temperature of shell 2 unchanged. This means shell 2 now has 8 times the radiative flux acting on shell 1. That is clearly going to change the effect on shell 1.
So I call BS on this formula except in the trivial case where shell 1 and 2 are the same size which violates the requirement that shell 2 enclose shell 1.
q = s A(T1^4 – T2^4)
==============
Further, now expand shell 2 to infinity, and set the temperature of shell 2 to any value greater than 0. Say 3.4K
Now select any size for shell 1 less than infinity. The flux from shell 2 acting on shell 1 must be infinite, therefore if we live in an infinite universe the planet earth would have burned up unless the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
If the speed of expansion is limited to rhe speed of light then our universe is not infinite. There must be a region outside our universe or the formula is wrong.
WUWT cannot be considered an AGW sceptical website while Willis Eschenbach continues to post bullshit articles on the effects of atmospheric back radiation on surface warming.
No evidence. No credibility. No honesty. No humility. Just sheer arrogance.
The Steel Greenhouse is just The Steel Craphouse.
A joke representation of how our planet is heated and how it cools.
Dump this WE guy.
Only kidding. You should just dump me instead. Problem solved. That’s what WUT normally do anyway..
You have been working to get my attention. You got it now. Happy?
Charles Rotter, do your worst.
I am a committed anti-CAGW voice. I am also a committed anti-lukewarmist voice.
Shut me up if you desire a smooth running WUWT..
Do it. I dare you.
I double dare you.
Cowards like you are easily exposed.
Willis Eschenbach is a sophist. End of.
Give me evidence for the surface warming properties of atmospheric CO2.
You cannot can you, Charles, can you?
Just ban me, instead.
Easy way out.
https://youtu.be/Cs4Gj7JsET4
leitmotif “Just throw me in the briar”patch!
–
“Give me evidence for the surface warming properties of atmospheric CO2.”
“I am a committed anti-CAGW voice”.
or is it
“I am a committed anti-surface warming properties of atmospheric CO2.voice”.
–
CO2 does not, of itself, warm things.
It is not a power source per se.
So, sadly, technically speaking, you are correct.
However, the presence of CO2 in at atmosphere irradiated by an energy source enables said atmosphere to run at a different temperature to an atmosphere sans CO2.
This is also a property of other gases irradiated by energy at their spectral “absorption” settings.
Nothing to do with them being a heat source
You either believe that such reactions are possible, or you don’t.
Closing your eyes to this fact, but accepting the rest of science, is a problem.
Is WUWT a respectable climate change website as long as it adheres to cancel culture?
I say this as I have been told by Charles Rotter that I have been brought to his attention over a comment made by me about the sophist Willis Eschenbach. You know, the guy who believes that atmospheric back radiation from ghgs heats the planet, Yeah, I know, bullshit but ….
While griff, loydo and simon are allowed to express their CAGW beliefs on WUWT, I am not allowed to express my views on lukewarmism and the ECS.
Funny old game, climate change.
Yes, yes. It was that ONE comment.
Charles. Are you a CO2 sceptic or a lukewarmist?
Your choice.
The back-radiation loop of the standard radiative physics model is actually our adiabatic mass motion convection loop (aka the Hadley Cell) of meteorology.
==========
I have no problem with the back radiation concept in a vacuum. However I think it is a nonsense in earth’s atmosphere.
The bulk of energy tranfer from the surface to 500 mb is done by convection because the lower atmosphere is opaque to outgoing IR radiation. This is well documented.
Well if the lower atmosphere is opaque to outgiing IR then it most certainly is also opaque to incoming IR back radiation.
This means that the so called greenhouse effect is not and cannot be a radiative effect. It must be due to something else.
The obvious candidate is the cold dry air carried to altitude by convection. As this air descends it will warm at a rate of about 9.8K/km, returning the work done by the ascending air back to the surface in the form of thermal energy.
This can also combine with surface air carried from warm to cold as well as ocean currents all under the label advection. This xonrrols the variance in temperatures, allowing average temperatures to change without any radiative change at TOA.
There is no need for back radiation to explain this. And in fact as has been documenred elsewhere, the lower atmosphere will not allow significant amount of IR to pass in either direction. As such back radiation cannot be the cause of the greenhouse effect.
This has nothing to do with compressive heating and other pooly constructed arguments against this most obvious process.
ferdberple
[The back-radiation loop of the standard radiative physics model is actually our adiabatic mass motion convection loop (aka the Hadley Cell) of meteorology.}
==========
” I have no problem with the back radiation concept in a vacuum.”
Ferd, An amusing but vacuous dodge presumably meant because a vacuum cannot initiate back radiation.
“However I think it is a nonsense in earth’s atmosphere.”
Amazing how some scientists think that GHG molecules actually absorb and radiate energy , including backwards against all rational thought processes and observations.
“The bulk of energy transfer from the surface to 500 mb is done by convection because the lower atmosphere is opaque to outgoing IR radiation.”
Human eyes do not see infra red which is how energy transfers from the earth’s surface to space.
Yet if you put your hand 4 inches above a bitumen road surface you can feel the IR radiating through the non opaque atmosphere quite easily.
Another example is your TV remote control where the IR message goes quite easily through meters of the lower atmosphere to reach and control the set.
The exact situation is that in the very lowest atmosphere a large amount of most IR is able to be absorbed in a distance of meters from the surface.
That IR, as you know is remitted into the next layer up [and sideways and back down] a few more meters and as the layers rise the air concentration and GHG decrease meaning the upwards portion can travel longer distances before being reabsorbed.
Eventually it reaches a layer where the radiation can be lost to space without intervention bt GHG.
There is no opaqueness, as you claim, or the energy is not stopped from traveling from warmer to cooler larger layers of atmosphere upwards.
Only if not remitted would there be opacity.
As for convection, piffle.
True, you can do convection diagrams til the cows come home.
Hadley cells, trade winds currents whatever.
All they do is provide a convenient explanation for why the energy going to space, or the next higher layer is coming from that part of the air mass.
Or as Willis puts it helps to explain why the heat loss per grid varies while overall staying the same.
Remember the molecules are constantly loosing energy to space and back radiating at the same time as they are receiving more energy from space and less from the ground.
As Zelazny would say the masses of hot rising air, the molecules, are ephemeral.
The real heat loss is IR constantly going on radiating to space through whatever is in the way and absolutely uninfluenced by it.
N.B
For every hot air mass rising a cool mass is coming down around it resulting in zero change of energy at the overall TOA.
“Well if the lower atmosphere is opaque to outgoing IR then it most certainly is also opaque to incoming IR back radiation.”
As pointed out your concept of opaqueness is wrong.
“This means that the so called greenhouse effect is not and cannot be a radiative effect”.
Yet it is a radiative effect, all the way to space, constantly, opaqueness be damned.
.
“There is no need for back radiation to explain this. And in fact as has been documenred elsewhere, the lower atmosphere will not allow significant amount of IR to pass in either direction. As such back radiation cannot be the cause of the greenhouse effect.”
The flaw in your argument is overlooking the IR radiation to space which could never occur if the IR from the SW on the surface was trapped by opaque atmosphere.
Itwould lead to an inevitable super heated earth and no outward radiation.
That IR, as you know is remitted into the next layer up [and sideways and back down] a few more meters and as the layers rise the air concentration and GHG decrease meaning the upwards portion can travel longer distances before being reabsorbed.
Eventually it reaches a layer where the radiation can be lost to space without intervention bt GHG.
There is no opaqueness, as you claim, or the energy is not stopped from traveling from warmer to cooler larger layers of atmosphere upwards.”
The layer *is* opaque. Otherwise there would be no convection upwards. All the radiation would just escape straight to space. You are conjoining two separate processes – absorption and convection.
Tim,
“The layer *is* opaque. Otherwise there would be no convection upwards. All the radiation would just escape straight to space. You are conjoining two separate processes – absorption and convection.”
The layer is a term used to describe the distance that those IR frequencies which can be absorbed would be completely absorbed in.
Not a series of opaque blankets that IR can never travel through.
In essence there is no opacity.
At all times the number of IR photons being absorbed and emitted is equal.
It is only when one gets to the last layer, the TOA that the IR goes out and does not return.
Convection is a description of the behaviour of loose surface molecules while the process of IR radiation occurs.
If they were all bound tight on the surface you would talk of vibrations of the solid molecules and how one composition was more vibratory than another.
Basically matter moves when energy is passing through it but the energy does not care where the matter is, just how to get in and out
“At all times the number of IR photons being absorbed and emitted is equal.”
Absorption implies opacity of some kind. Perhaps not total but at least significant.
Like I said, you can’t conflate absorption and convection. They are different processes.
Tim
Absorption implies opacity of some kind. Perhaps not total but at least significant.
Stopping at stage one of a two stage process does not help clear the air either.
The concept here is not the temporary pause if indeed one exists.
The concept is the energy flow, not which particular photon carries it.
If the energy is not retained or stored then the energy is clearly seen.
The mechanism of reemission which accompanies “absorption” means that there is no loss of transmission hence no opaqueness.
Unless you want to contest the notion that energy is continually passing through the atmosphere back to space,
with or without the assistance of an atmosphere.
That seems to be the implication.
IR cannot get off the ground without convection,
because of opacity of the air but somehow when it gets high enough it suddenly looses its previous property of absorption with retention.
If you wish to support others arguments on opacity grounds while knowing full well that radiation has to continue unblocked be my guest.
“Stopping at stage one of a two stage process does not help clear the air either.”
There *is* more than one process. Conflating them doesn’t provide any clarity.
If CO2 prevents heat from escaping out then it also prevents heat from getting in. You can’t have it both ways.
I said: “Absorption implies opacity of some kind. Perhaps not total but at least significant.”
Don’t imply I said total opacity. I didn’t. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Tim
“If CO2 prevents heat from escaping out then it also prevents heat from getting in. You can’t have it both ways”.
What?
Heat [energy from the sun] can get in by SW and then be interacted with by C02 on the way out as IR LW.
Heat does not restrict itself as to its means of getting in and out.
As an aside the Solar input has a lot of IR in it absorbed in the first layer in [last layer out] that never gets to the surface.
“I said: “Absorption implies opacity of some kind. Perhaps not total but at least significant.”
“Don’t imply I said total opacity.
I didn’t. Stop putting words in my mouth.”
“The layer *is* opaque.”
The sun’s spectrum includes a lot of IR, much of which is absorbed by water vapor before every reaching the surface and CO2 absorbs some of it as well.
Have you ever “felt” the heat on your face and arms while standing out in the sun? What do you suppose causes that? SW or LWIR?
I do think WUWT was more interesting when there was a wider discussion of the alternative hypothesis.
Arguing the lukewarm position that climate science is correct in their methods, but in error over magnitude is self-defeating.
No scientist living today or in the past knows the correct answer because we do not know how much climate varies naturally.
As such, so long as the math can be demonstrated then no hypothesis should be off the table.
There is plenty of evidence that climate science gets the math wrong but the answer right, which suggests the methods are wrong.. Which means the lukewarm methods are wrong as well.
This hurts WUWT make a convincing case.
Philip I downloaded your latest and everything seemed good under adobe reader for android liquid mode. Screen in portrait mode. Tables colors and image all worked. Could expand/contract for readability. Tables with least columns easiest to read.
Willis wrote
“Folks, there are a lot of untrue claims going on out here on the web.”
Willis wrote:
“My Usual Note: When you comment PLEASE quote the exact words you’re discussing”
===========
When you point a finger at other people you are pointing 3 fingers back at yourself.
Philip reading your model, some ideas came to mind.
Didnt like doubling the atmospheric window
The moist air lapse rate of 8 seems high. 6.5 is what is most often quoted.
You add the radiation from the 2 halves and apply S-B, effectively spinning the planet to get temp.
15C is based on gridding surface temps I believe. So apply S-B to each half to get 2 grid temps then average.
First frost warning so this snowbird is off to florida for some global warming. offline mostly.
OK I will check the logic for that.
Ferd,
I reduced the Atmospheric Window in the Adiabatic DAET Opacity model to 40 W/m2 (post feedbacks) and the GAT rises to 22.1 Celsius with an Atmospheric Window sacrifice of 3.01% (as opposed to my preferred 6.4% sacrifice)
The key point is that with a single lit hemisphere the input solar power flux gets doubled, (divide original solar input by 2 and not by 4 is the rule for this model) so the output atmospheric window flux (post feedbacks) must also be doubled.
Have a look again at my Figure 3.
No. This is the critical mistake that I made, and I got caned by the Physicists for making it. The Diabatic Model fully matches the Vacuum Planet Equation only when I average Flux and not Temperature.
Have a look at Figure 2 and also Table 5.
Yes, and our planet is not tidally locked Noonworld, it has a diurnal spin!
Nice touch that isn’t it 😉
That is fine to alter, the model fluxes are unaffected by the lapse rate.
Can be adjusted to an acceptable value.