G & T weigh in on adiabatic atmospheres and raise the bar

Posted: January 6, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate

Over on last year’s excellent SOD venusian mysteries part two thread occasional Talkshop contributor Bryan linked a .pdf by Gerlich and Tscheuschner which has large relevance to the current interest in Nikolov and Zeller’s and Hans Jelbring’s hypotheses. This is a technical paper and I don’t understand all the squiggles, but I’m sure the recent addition to the Talkshop of some real atmospheric thermodynamic expertise will make this an interesting thread.

Rather than the usual abstract at this point I’m going to quote the results section:

arXiv:1003.1508v2 [physics.ao-ph] 9 Mar 2010
On The Barometric Formulas
And Their Derivation From
Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
Version 2.0 (March 9, 2010)

3 Results
By combining hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, and imposing the above listed assumptions
for planetary atmospheres one can compute the temperature profiles of idealized atmospheres.
In the case of the adiabatic atmosphere the decrease of the temperature with height is described
by a linear function with slope −g/Cp , where Cp depends weakly on the molecular mass. As
elucidated in our paper [4, 3] mixtures of gases are covered in the context of Gibbs ther-
modynamics. Since the measurable thermodynamic quantities of a voluminous medium, in
particular the specific heat and the thermodynamic transport coefficients, naturally include
the contribution from radiative interactions, we cannot expect that a change of concentration
of a trace gas has any measurable effect. At this point, it is important to remember that the
barometric formulas do not hold globally but have only a limited range of validity.

—————————

What I’d like our (hopefully) resident experts to elucidate for us, is how limited the range of validity is. My guess is that G & T are being conservative and covering their behinds given the heavy flak they got over their earlier paper. Something that looks impressive to my admittedly rapidly scanning and somewhat glazed eye is their inclusion of horizontal winds, coriolis and centrifugal forces and etc in the analysis.

The paper is available here.

This thread will be moderated for relevance – so watch it Adolfo. And Joe, I know they mention the magic word centrifugal, but this does not give you carte blanche to scatter half baked nonsense here. Engage brain before fingers please :)

Comments
  1. The troposphere (where the adiabat applies) isn’t the whole atmosphere. Radiative effects are irrelevant in the former but important above (and at the tropopause) .

  2. iya says:

    If most of the CO2 emission to space is from the stratosphere, can increased CO2
    (a) alter the altitude of the tropopause and/or
    (b) alter the temperature of the tropopause?

  3. tallbloke says:

    IYA, I believe the current thinking is that most of the emission to space is from about 5km, lower than the tropopause.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Maurizio: ok, so we can say goodbye to the non-existant tropical tropospheric hotspot caused by additional co2?

  5. No, the 5km is an “effective height”, not a physical layer.

    The troposphere is where convection and conduction occur, so as shown also by Pierrehumbert the radiative effects are pretty much irrelevant. There are too many molecules for that to matter (that’s why it ain’t warmer under a cloud of CO2, otherwise there’d be CO2 insulators in every house).

  6. Joe Born says:

    For the benefit of someone who took a couple of semesters of chemistry 45 years ago, could someone explain the introduction of R tilde at Equation 15? Starting with pV = nRT and dividing through by the number of moles, I get pV/n = RT, where the left side is the product of pressure and volume per mole. If you then multiply by moles/gram (the reciprocal of molecular weight), you get pv = RT * mole/gram, where v is volume per gram. That would make R tilde = R * mole/gram, having units of J/g-K. But G & T say it’s “R/(1 Mol).” I don’t get it.

  7. Hans says:

    Tallbloke for sure has an admirable way of chosing relevant topics. This paper seems to be short and down to the point and it will be a pleasure to comment it in detail later on. Their falsification paper was too long and contained some weaknesses that easily could be used by the agressive warmist to get the interest away from the major topic, the falsification of CO2 impact on temperature. G&T have exposed about half a dozen good reasons to bury the unproven AGW hypotheses for good. I did correspond with professor Gerlich about the falsifaication paper some years ago and consider him an outstanding scientist. However I am glad about this shorter paper and about the remark:

    “At this point, it is important to remember that the
    barometric formulas do not hold globally but have only a limited range of validity.”

  8. Bryan says:

    Tallbloke thanks for bringing this G&T paper to a wider audience.

    When the adiabatic troposphere can be described without any reference to radiation it begs the question;

    Where is the greenhouse effect?

    The dry adiabatic lapse rate formula is derived with no reference to radiation.
    I can provide a link if required
    Hydrostatic equilibrium is the condition for the derivation of the formula.
    In fact it does not even assume convection is taking place.

    The still air atmosphere is called the NEUTRAL atmosphere.
    The neutral atmosphere is often quite stable particularly at night.
    Yet the neutral atmosphere contains radiating CO2!
    So where is the radiation effect in the neutral atmosphere?

    For instance the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate is given as

    DALR = -g/Cp

    The gravitational effect is evident through g (the gravitational field strength.)
    The thermodynamics enters via the heat capacity Cp
    Plugging in the numbers gives

    DALR = -9.8K/km

    It would appear then that the significant means of heat transfer is by diffusion for the neutral atmosphere.

    The heat capacity of a gas(Cp) contains a lot of thermodynamics.
    G&T point out above that Cp for air is weakly dependent on mass and the radiative effects are so small as to be negligible
    Many treat Cp as a constant and leave it at that but that is a oversimplification as air contains CO2 with all its radiative properties.

    These radiative properties are included in the bulk quantity Cp

    If we examine how Cp changes with temperature for two different gases the point will become clearer.

    A range of 250K to 350K will cover most atmospheric situations.

    For Nitrogen (N2) the values vary by 0.2% i.e. almost constant
    Since air is 80% composed of nitrogen then its Cp is almost constant.

    However for CO2 the values vary by 13.1%

    Why does CO2 change so much?

    Because other degrees of freedom besides translational become possible for CO2 as the temperature changes.
    These extra degrees of freedom correspond to the 4um and 15um thermal em wavelengths

    Point being that if accurate values of Cp are used as the temperature changes then all the radiative effect are included!

    IPCC advocates on the other hand want to deal separately with radiation forgetting that it has already been included in Cp.
    This leads to double counting and the absurd greenhouse effect.

    For air with a trace of CO2 the radiative effects are very small so there is a linear decrease in temperature with increasing altitude.
    The DALR would be almost constant at -9.8K/km.

    If the Earths atmosphere was 100% composed of CO2 then at;
    300K …………..DALR = -11.6K/km
    250K …………..DALR = -12.4K/km

    So no longer a linear relationship as Cp is no longer constant but varies significantly with temperature.

  9. Brian H says:

    Warmists will be outraged and shocked — shocked! — that G&T have the temerity to raise their heads after being debunked by the CRU Jackasses of All Sciences, Masters of None.

  10. Bryan – yes, there’s no effect of radiative properties in the troposphere. Because whatever effect there might be, it is going to be counteracted by convection (and conduction).

    Otherwise an overcast sky with an opening in the clouds where the sun is, would quickly transform into an oven.

    The tropospheric hotspot, falsely claimed as fingerprint of AGW (there isn’t any, fingerprint or.hotspots) is not expected to be there because of accumulating CO2.

    BTW the temp profile in Jupiter’s atmosphere reveals the adiabatic is not due to the ground heating up the atmosphere.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Maurizio: Ok so the ‘effective height’ is so called because – what?
    It is at the temperature the bulk of the outgoing long wave radiation must go from?

  12. Bryan says:

    Maurizio Morabito

    I would have thought that the radiative aspect would become very evident in the still air neutral atmosphere where convection is minimised.

    However it is not apparent.

    The usual models of the Greenhouse effect such as mutually radiating slabs or layers just seem superfluous.
    Perhaps you could point me to a greenhouse model that describes the neutral atmosphere?
    Of course in the more general atmospheric case where strong convection is the major method of heat transfer the radiative effect will be negligible
    Your information about Jupiter is interesting but a direct equivalence to Earth may be misplaced.
    For instance the complicated gravitational interactions of Jupiter and its moons.

  13. Paul Matthews says:

    The ‘squiggles’ are correct, though as the authors themselves acknowledge at the end of page 9, this is all standard textbook stuff regarding an adiabatic atmosphere.
    See for example the lecture notes at

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html

    where (336) is essentially G&T’s (60) .
    Another example is at

    http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521706939/7653_Appendix%20H.pdf

    G&T say that their derivation sets out the assumptions more clearly than standard texts, which may be true. Their inclusion of a horizontal wind is not very impressive: it only works if the wind is constant, which follows from Galilean invariance (physics is the same in a moving frame).

    This shows what I said a couple of posts back – the derivation of the lapse rate is a consequence of gravity and the gas laws, and has nothing to do with radiation or greenhouse gases.

    The calculation tells you the temperature gradient, but not the temperature itself! T_0 in their final equation (61) is unknown.

  14. Stephen Wilde says:

    From the layman point of view a significant drawback of the original G&T paper and the work of Harry Dale Huffman and Claes Johnson was that they sought to deny the existence of any greenhouse effect at all.

    I, for one, couldn’t accept that.

    They should have made it clear that they do accept a greenhouse effect but that it is gravitationally induced rather than radiatively induced.

    That might have been implicit in their work but it never came out clearly at the time.

    We need to be careful not to leave ourselves open in the same way. The reception of the Nikolov paper seems to have been a bit of a breakthrough and a lot rides on it being persuasive when the full version comes to be analysed critically.

  15. iya says:

    The outgoing long wave radiation is coming from different sources and temperatures, that’s why I find it so difficult to quantify additional CO2 impact.
    The bulk is from H2O at middle troposphere, but CO2 is from the tropopause and the peak at 15µm is from the stratosphere:

    source: http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf
    This has a good description of the thermodynamic atmospheric greenhouse effect, without any mention of heat trapping, backradiation or radiative forcing.

  16. The effective height is a mathematical concept. It’s the equivalent of computing orbits by assuming the whole mass of every planet is concentrated in a central point. Useful if everybody understands that’s not where the mass actually is.

  17. Let’s also remember the NASA page on planetary atmospheres says nothing about the ghg.

  18. iya says:

    @Maurizio
    A little offtopic, but what about this:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    It’s the typical “backradiation warms the surface” rubbish, which is in direct violation of the 2nd law.

    Also this on Mars:
    “Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.”

    So now pressure is responsible for the greenhouse effect?
    And don’t mention that Mars has ~12x more CO2 than Earth in total, and ~44x more in density.

  19. Iya – rather than dodgy propaganda sites look for “atmospheric sciences” and the proper NASA pages will surface

  20. mkelly says:

    May I also recommend a paper by Dr. Elasasser

    It is on radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere.

  21. suricat says:

    Hi tallbloke.

    At first sight it looks as though – quote; “At this point, it is important to remember that the
    barometric formulas do not hold globally but have only a limited range of validity.” – they’ve not set the parameters for ‘F ext’.

    In “Assumption 3″ they then “set ‘F ext’ to zero”. By doing this they’ve removed any reference to vectors of centrifuge and coriolis effect! Surely, all we have left now is a reference to the atmosphere from within the atmosphere (without Earth’s stirring movement), or did I squint at the wrong time while reading?

    Best regards, Ray.

  22. JT says:

    I continue think that the question whether an isolated column of air in a gravitational field would, at thermodynamic equilibrium, show both pressure and temperature gradients, or a pressure gradient but with an uniform temperature, is of the utmost importance to a proper understanding of the importance of the “greenhouse effect”. Apropos of that question the following thought experiment occurs: Imagine that a very tall ( 5 miles high) cylinder was built to enclose a portion of the extant atmosphere with its extant pressure and temperature gradients. Seal it all around and insulate it perfectly. Leave the gravitational field on. Allow no radiation in or out. Will it retain its extant pressure and temperature gradients or will the temperature equilibrate throughout the column? Note that if the temperature does equilibrate throughout the column that would be a spontaneous thermodynamic change. Such a change would require a corresponding increase in the entropy of the gas within the cylinder. So the question reduces to: which state has the higher entropy? The state with a pressure gradient (which implies a high concentration of gas molecules at one end of the cylinder and a low concentration of molecules at the other) coupled with a high average kinetic energy among the highly concentrated molecules and a low average kinetic energy among the molecules at low concentration; or said pressure gradient with equal average molecular kinetic energy throughout? A temperature gradient would allow the majority of the molecules to have a significantly higher temperature than would be the temperature at which all the molecules would be found if the temperature were uniform. It seems to me that a mathematical thermodynamicist should be able to calculate the total entropy of each state by integrating an entropy function dependent upon molecular concentration and temperature from one end of the cylinder to the other. Sorry, can’t do the math myself so is there anyone out there who can?

  23. adolfogiurfa says:

    It is important to reproduce Gerlich and Tscheuschnertheir conclusions:

    (a) [snip]

    [Reply] Those are the conclusions of a different paper to the one under discussion

  24. tallbloke says:

    JT: try the papers I linked on the Loschmidt thread
    I think there may be some sleight of hand in them so be careful..

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/#comment-13158

  25. adolfogiurfa says:

    As for the “water bottle effect”:[snip]

    [Reply] We are not discussing “water bottle effect” in this thread.

  26. Hans says:

    JT says:

    January 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    “So the question reduces to: which state has the higher entropy?”

    Your problem definittion is well structured and chrystal clear. The solution is found by noticing that a dry (dismiss water vapor) adiabatic temperature lapse rate -g/Cp defines the maximum entropy for any mass within the closed column or as in my E&E article the closed atmosphere.
    See:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/

    Energy in an enclosed isothermal column has to dissipate spontaneosly after enclosure. Meteorologists dhoulf [would(?)] understand this very well and they call the difference between the actual energy state and the adiabatic one integrated vertically for Available Energy if I remember correctly.

  27. Hans says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    January 6, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    “I, for one, couldn’t accept that.
    They should have made it clear that they do accept a greenhouse effect but that it is gravitationally induced rather than radiatively induced.”

    I share your opinion. This was one of the topics and opinions I forwarded when communicating with professor Gerlich. I am surprized why he did not referenced my E&E article and did not criticized it either. This standing weakens their falsification arguments and it has no suport in observations.

  28. Tenuc says:

    suricat says:
    January 6, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    “…In “Assumption 3″ they then “set ‘F ext’ to zero”. By doing this they’ve removed any reference to vectors of centrifuge and coriolis effect! Surely, all we have left now is a reference to the atmosphere from within the atmosphere (without Earth’s stirring movement), or did I squint at the wrong time while reading?”

    Hi Ray, that’s a good point and clarified something for me which didn’t seen right, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I only scanned the paper the first time and will have another read later, time permitting. Thanks for the nudge… :-)

  29. Bryan says:

    Stephen Wilde says of G&T

    “They should have made it clear that they do accept a greenhouse effect but that it is gravitationally induced rather than radiatively induced.”

    There is no doubt some kind of effect.

    I wonder though , if it should be called a greenhouse effect?
    Surely that title must have some (however remote) connection to a greenhouse and its claimed radiative effects.
    I agree with Joseph Postma that the term atmospheric effect is a better description of the gravitational, thermodynamic effect that we know

    I thought readers might be interested in a new peer reviewed paper by Gerhard Kramm and Ralph Dlugi which comes out with broad support for the G&T falsification paper

    They come to the conclusion that the greenhouse theory is a set of merit-less conjectures with no physical support.

    They examine the claimed greenhouse effect from all angles.
    They use the radiative transfer equations to support their conclusions.
    At times it seems very similar to a RealClimate link

    Of particular interest is ;
    The energy reservoir diagram Fig 11
    This for me is the missing link in the sceptics case.
    The surface temperature cannot be determined solely by radiative fluxes.
    We must add a surface GROUND HEAT FLUX to the radiative fluxes to determine the actual surface temperature at that point.
    This is why for instance that the cold side of the Moon never drops to almost zero Kelvin.
    If the ground heat flux is necessary to derive realistic temperatures for the Moon then likewise for Earth.

    The irradiance overlap area Fig 5 is much larger than IPCC science would have you believe

    On a more humorous note they find further errors in the Halpern et al comment paper which sought to criticise Gerlich and Tscheuschner .

    See page 1316
    Wrong formula
    Wrong units
    Which of course leads to silly numbers.

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233

  30. tallbloke says:

    Surely that title must have some (however remote) connection to a greenhouse and its claimed radiative effects.
    I agree with Joseph Postma that the term atmospheric effect is a better description of the gravitational, thermodynamic effect that we know

    I think the most appropriate name is that used by Sheehan describing Loschmidt’s hypothesis:

    The Gravito-Thermal Effect

    Of course we could embellish this to

    Climatic-Gravito-Atmospheric-Thermal-Effect or ClimateGATE for short. ;)

    Thanks for the further paper Bryan, I’ll take a look.

  31. Phillip Bratby says:

    Hans and Stephen Wilde say we should accept a greenhouse effect. But that cannot be done unless there is a definitive definition of the “greenhouse effect”. There seem to be countless different definitions, or is there one that people can refer to as being definitive?

  32. higley7 says:

    What baffles me is the faulty definition of a greenhouse gas as it does not do what a greenhouse does. CO2 and water vapor may be able to absorb IR and convert it to heat energy, but it more often simply re-emits the IR. There is a small statistical rate of passing energy off to there molecules, but hen other molecules can pass energy to the CO2, which then has the option of emitting the energy as IR. It’s a two-way street.

    N2 and O2 on the other hand can heat by conduction from the Earth’s surface and have no way to emit energy as IR. The heat is trapped, just as in a greenhouse.

    I believe the definition of a greenhouse gas has been tailored to fit the needed, biased, warmest idea of the greenhouse effect due to CO2, when in fact the greenhouse gases are N2 and O2, which they cannot blame on human activity.

    Having CO2 as a gas in the atmosphere is akin to drilling lots of small holes in your real glass greenhouse. They would leak energy to the outside just as water vapor and CO2 due in our atmosphere, particularly at night.

  33. Hans says:

    Phillip Bratby says:
    January 6, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    “Hans and Stephen Wilde say we should accept a greenhouse effect. But that cannot be done unless there is a definitive definition of the “greenhouse effect”. There seem to be countless different definitions, or is there one that people can refer to as being definitive?”

    The major cause of science is to describe real phenomena in nature for predictive purpose. Ultimately it deals with survival. We have to adapt to reality as individuals and as species. With this perspective most animals with a brain are practicing science. Observational evidence should never be rejected by theoretical science.

    The observational fact is that any atmosphere bearing planet is cooler seen from space than the black-body radiation from it would indicate keeping the albedo constant based on surface temperature measurements. This is of course a model concept but a fairly good one. No one can deny that it applies on Venus, Earth and Titan.

    Interestingly this definition was promoted by Phil Jones in an English Encyclopaedia (I have forgotten which one). Of more importance might be that the Greenhouse Effect according to this definition can easily be calculated based on NASA fact sheet for planets. Just Google Venus fact sheet or Earth fact sheet. The average surface temperature is given as 737K and the black-body temperature is given as 184K. With this definition based on observations (and to some extent on verified modelling) Venus (GE) = 737-184 = 553 K and Earth(GE) = 288-254 = 34K.
    What this effect is called is actually a semantic problem. The warmists make all efforts they can to confuse the concepts. Hope this information clarifies that there is one simple definition that is based on observations and is totally free from stating causes. A proper name would for sure be adequate to find.

    To state that the Greenhouse Effect is what is caused by greenhouse gases is of little help when trying to find the reason for the observed difference mentioned above.

  34. Hans says:

    Tallbloke says:
    “Climatic-Gravito-Atmospheric-Thermal-Effect or ClimateGATE for short.”

    Any name pointing to the cause is bad because it negates an investigation of real causes without prejudice.
    What about “Obseved Planetary Atmospheric Temperature Anomaly Effect or the OPATA Effect.
    Even I would be able to pronounce it.
    Cheers

  35. tallbloke says:

    Fair point Hans. The Greenhouse Effect was originally known as ‘The Callendar Effect’ after Guy Callendar who made co2 measurements and wrote papers back in the 40’s. He was an amateur Meteorologist.

    Maybe it’s time to bring on a more professional approach with

    ‘The Jelbring Effect’.

    I think this has a good ring to it. ;)

  36. suricat says:

    Tenuc.

    “I only scanned the paper the first time and will have another read later, time permitting.”

    If you get the time, they claim the term ‘F ext’ in equation (1) as the “external force densities” and that equation (1) “could describe the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations.”. Centrifugal acceleration requires an input of latitude to enable the calculation of the radius of arc, so as to arrive at the force vector (magnitude and surface angle at which it is directed). The same latitude input is also used to calculate the retrograde decay with altitude at that surface angle (Coriolis effect).

    From what I see, ‘F ext’ is the only term in equation (1) that could hold this information, but they set it to “zero” (above a Pole [90°]?). Did I miss something?

    I also question “Assumption 2″ where the magnitude of any Earth centrifuge seems to be dismissed. In fact, perhaps this could be a major flaw in the logic that permits “Assumption 3″.

    I’ve skimmed the paper once and only ‘zoomed in’ on these features as they seemed odd, but I’m not sure what this paper is about any more. :(

    Best regards, Ray.

  37. Stephen Wilde says:

    “To state that the Greenhouse Effect is what is caused by greenhosue gases is of little help when trying to find the reason for the observed difference mentioned above.”

    From the best of my recollection in the 1960s the Greenhouse effect was generally recognised as a gravitational phenomenon.

    The idea that it was a radiative phenomenon seems to have supplanted that knowledge at some point and the redefiniton has taken hold.

  38. Roger Andrews says:

    Over the last few years I’ve been messing around with phenomenological models trying to segregate natural (basically solar and solar-related) impacts from anthropogenic impacts on global temperature, but I can’t match observations without significant anthropogenic warming after about 1970, and as far as I know neither can anyone else (e.g. Scafetta & West, Solanki & Fligge, Stott et al., Loehle & Scafetta)

    But now the theory is that man-made CO2 emissions don’t in fact cause warming (“we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect”. “the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.” “the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change”.)

    So if the post-1970 warming wasn’t caused by greenhouse gases, what did cause it?

  39. iya says:

    Using the black-body temperature in the definition of the greenhouse effect has the problem that it’s not a good model for the average surface-temperature of a planet.

    T_black-body * (1-albedo) is the upper limit for a planet without atmosphere, and
    T_gray-body as defined by Nikolov and Zeller is the lower limit.

    So the actual greenhouse effect on Earth is between 133 K and 34 K.
    The difference between the actual greenhouse effect and the lower limit is due to heat redistribution from wind, surface-surface radiation, conduction, etc.

    @Roger Andrews
    Some of us will claim that there is a nonzero effect from CO2.
    These papers are probably wrong, because they concentrated on refuting the straw man of a purely radiative effect.

  40. iya says:

    Sorry, that wasn’t quite correct, so once again for reference:
    T_black-body = (S*(1-ɑ)/(4εσ))^0.25
    T_gray-body = 0.4*((S+0.0001325)(1-ɑ)/(εσ))^0.25

    The first assumes perfect conductor, the second (as far as I can tell) perfect insulator.

    As for natural variability, it really is not known how high it is, with the best short term candidates being atmosphere + ocean circulation changes and albedo changes, both possibly induced by solar variability.

  41. captdallas says:

    Bryan Said, “For Nitrogen (N2) the values vary by 0.2% i.e. almost constant
    Since air is 80% composed of nitrogen then its Cp is almost constant.

    However for CO2 the values vary by 13.1%”

    The thermal coefficient of CO2 also changes, by 32% from 0.087@30C to 0.115@ -20C. While a small impact, it does increase the rate of heat transfer between the ocean air boundary, especially with increased turbulent flow i.e. horizontal convection. Over longer time scales, centuries it would have a significant impact.

    If you consider that CO2 lags temperature both leading into and out of Glacial periods, it would have the least cooling impact increasing to its maximum cooling impact near the end of an interglacial where it would tend to offset some portion of the radiant impact of CO2. The thermal conductivity change is more linear with temperature than the radiant impact, so during a prolonged solar minimum, the increased conductivity would continue to cooling at nearly the same rate while radiant forcing would decrease by nearly the fourth power of temperature change.

    The ocean/atmosphere thermal boundary is one of the most important thermal boundaries to understand. Since the ocean to air has 1000:1 greater thermal transfer potential than air to ocean, only a small change over a long time is required to remove ocean heat and promote stronger ocean circulation with higher CO2 concentration and slower with lower CO2 concentration.

    It may be a bit far fetched, but it is thermodynamically sound and possibly one of the major lower frequency system feed backs.

  42. Tallbloke mentions definitions. Please note the following definition in chapter 5 of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook -Heat and Mass Transfer p 5-24 Nature of Thermal Radiation “The characteristic properties of a blackbody are that it absorbs all the radiation incident on its surface and that the quality and intensity of the radiation it emits are completely determined by its temperature. The total radiative flux throughout a hemisphere from a black surface of area A and absloute temperature T is given by the Stefan-Boltzman law Q=A*sigma*T^4.

    Note the word surface and hemisphere. A gas has no surface therefore, regardless of what the physicists and AGW proponents like to think, the Stefan-Boltzman law (equation) does not apply to gases in the atmosphere. Further, there are no blackbodies. It has been shown that radiation from the sun does not follow exactly the Planck distribution. Also, no one knows the diameter of the sun. Prof Olivier Manual has issued papers indicating that the sun has a solid core. Thus it is possible or likely that the sun has a surface but no one knows its area. It would be interesting for someone to determine the gravitional affects on the sun’s temperature profile.

    Prof Hoyt Hottel at MIT performed measurements and research on radiation from and to gas clouds. He found a relationship for radiation absorptivity which involved partial pressures and path length. This allowed some calculations for the design of furances and heat exchangers. I will let others speculate why no reference to Prof Hottel’s work is made by the so-called climate science. My simple suggestions is that none of them have the capacity to understand the complexities of heat and mass transfer.

  43. gallopingcamel says:

    Brian H says:
    “Warmists will be outraged and shocked — shocked! — that G&T have the temerity to raise their heads after being debunked by the CRU Jackasses of All Sciences, Masters of None.”

    Given the venom that was directed at G&T I predicted that N&Z would be buried under an avalanche of ad hominems and red herrings. Thus far this has not happened so perhaps the onslaught from mathematics and hard science is finally overwhelming squishy “Climate Science”.

    On a similar theme it may be significant that the CAGW faithful still have not figured out how to discredit the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

    The IPCC folks are slow learners. Their WG1 drafts does not include a single reference from Shariv, Kirkby, Lindzen, Baliunas or Soon. Just one reference for Craig Loehle compared to over 100 for Michael Mann. Fair and balanced?…….NOT

  44. gallopingcamel says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    “From the best of my recollection in the 1960s the Greenhouse effect was generally recognised as a gravitational phenomenon.”

    That’s what N&Z are saying and their mathematical model comes very close to observations. My only quibble with them relates to clouds and water vapour which nobody understands.

    When you get above the clouds, radiative transfer of heat becomes more significant. That is why the temperature gradient in the upper stratosphere is often inverted compared to what is normally found in the troposphere. It was well understood before N&K came along. If you want to know more about the processes look to Rodrigo Caballero (University College, Dublin):

    http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf

    The discussion of the dry adiabat starts on page 41. On page 44 you can see observational data (Figure 2.12) showing temperature INCREASING with height above 15 km.

    In section 5.17, (page 133), Caballero discusses the “Greenhouse Effect”:

    CHAPTER 5: ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
    In general, an atmosphere must satisfy 2 conditions in order to provide a greenhouse effect:
    it must absorb radiation radiation in the spectral range associated with black body radiation
    at temperature Te , and it must have a positive lapse rate. An atmosphere with a negative
    lapse rate (temperature increasing with height) will have a surface temperature colder than
    Te . This in known as the anti-greenhouse effect, and actually occurs on Earth in the polar
    regions during winter, as evidenced by Fig. 5.17b.

    This explains why a planet’s effective radiation temperature in the IR spectrum may be quite different from the surface temperature. In the case of Venus the temperature of the planet when observed from a distance appears to be 270-280 Kelvin rather than ~750 Kelvin (the typical surface temperature). Earth is more complicated because it does not have 100% cloud cover.

  45. George says:

    The whole black body thing has always seemed odd to me since Earth is a gray body but more importantly it is no uniform over its surface, it is rotating, and the amount of land/sea mix exposed to the sun varies constant over the period of a day.

    The surface on one side of the rotating sphere hasn’t been exposed to sun very long, the other side has been exposed for the duration of the day. And on the “back” side, the radiation is going to very depending on how far it is from the terminator and how much land/sea surface there is along that meridian. And the rotational axis is off center so a portion of that sphere stays exposed to sunlight for varying periods of time according to season. You would need to first model the surface that is receiving the radiation before you can model anything else. The nature of the surface at maximum sun angle is constantly changing with every passing minute.

  46. Richard111 says:

    As a total layman on this subject I am able to follow the reasoning as to why it is warmer on the surface than in the upper atmosphere. This is observable. Climb any mountain.
    But why must this be called a “greenhouse effect” ???
    It has nothing to do with a “greenhouse” which is a closed environment!

  47. Hans says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    “January 6, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    So if the post-1970 warming wasn’t caused by greenhouse gases, what did cause it?”

    First REGIONAL climate change is a historical fact and has caused civilizations to flourish and to suffer. Global climate change is nowadays quantitatively very small (+/-0.5K) and has happened over and over again during the last 1000 years and does not exclude devastating regional climate change.
    The Holocene climate optimum (4000-6000 BP) was about 2K warmer than now. The last ice age was -3 to -20K cooler than now depending on altitude and season. To find the answers to your question i wrote my thesis “Wind Controlled Climate”. One answer is that the climate system is too complex to be underrstood at all. Another is that some subsystems can be fairly well understood. My personal understanding today is that climate change will never be understod until the impact from other celestial bodies on climate change is recognized and understood and that in turn will not be understood before the physical reason for sunspot generation is understood. In other words, the level of scientific understanding in the field of climatology is very low. The statment from IPCC that CO2 is causing global warming (climate change nowadays at a 90% confidence level) is just a fraudulent claim mixed with a homocentric faith attitude.

  48. Hans says:

    George says:
    January 7, 2012 at 6:33 am
    “The whole black body thing has always seemed odd to me since Earth is a gray body but more importantly it is no uniform over its surface, it is rotating, and the amount of land/sea mix exposed to the sun varies constant over the period of a day.”

    You have to study IR emission from earth. It is not uniform but does not vary that much in equatorial and mid latitude areas. The minimum monthly Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is found around the south pole (120) and around the north pole (150). The maximum is +300 W/m^2. Compare with the earthly average OLR around 239 W/m^2. OLR from Venus is varying less than 5% and is emitting approximately (engeneeringwise) as a black body emitter. G&T have viewpoints on this topic which are theoretically correct.. Theoretical considerations have to be compared with observations (NASA data).

    In short solar power (energy per time unit) is hitting half the spere of earth and approximately the same power is emitted over the whole spere of earth as IR radiation.

  49. Aussie says:

    I need to approach this subject from a non-scientific pov. It suddenly struck me that there is a way of explaining what you mean by black body in terms that non-science people can understand. That way is black cars, clothing etc. vs white cars, clothing etc.

    Coming from Australia means that I have an appreciation of what it is like to live in a very hot climate. It is well known that black clothing and black cars are not good in high temperatures. The hot sun will make a black car even hotter. On the other hand white clothing and a white car tends to not get so hot from the sun (that can be debateable).

    Am I understanding this correctly?

  50. Hans says:

    Aussie says:
    January 7, 2012 at 9:17 am
    “I need to approach this subject from a non-scientific pov. It suddenly struck me that there is a way of explaining what you mean by black body in terms that non-science people can understand.”

    Your observation is based on experience and it is far from non-scientific. Furthermore, it is verified by theory. Unfortunatly the issue is a little mor complicated. We have sensors in our body to recognize some electromagnetic waves or rather photons. Visible light is seen by our eyes. Infraread radiation (IR) can be detected by our skin which reacts on absorbed energy/per area. We cannot see IR. Microwave radiation will on the other hand boil your blood if you put your hand in a microwave oven.

    A white closed car stays cooler inside than a black car since it reflects mor sunlight. The same is not true for IR radiation. Almost all IR is absorbed by any liquid or solid material and cannot penetrate its surface more than about 1 mm. That´s why you can feel the radiated heat from an IR heater on your skin. There is much more to this topic though. Keep on observing!

  51. isn’t there something magical in IR being absorbed by liquids and solids of all sorts, but going through gases of the wrong kind basically untouched?

  52. tallbloke says:

    As I understand it Maurizio, a lot of the incoming Solar IR is indeed absorbed in the atmosphere as shown on the Keihl-Trenberth energy budget cartoon. Half of the Solar IR absorbed by GHG’s is then re-emitted downwards.

    What I don’t understand is why Trenberth then includes that in his ‘back radiation’ amount as if it had come from the Earth’s surface. That looks like an error to me.

  53. Tallbloke, Trenberth’s cartoon is nonsense. In an email to Dr Noor Van Andel, Trenberth admitted that the radiation “window” was 66watts/m2 (from satellite measurements) and not 40 as in his cartoons (K&T97 and T,F&K2009). Then he complains of the missing heat of 0.9 W/m2. There is no back radiation and he knows it.

  54. tallbloke says:

    Hans Jelbring said:

    My personal understanding today is that climate change will never be understood until the impact from other celestial bodies on climate change is recognized and understood and that in turn will not be understood before the physical reason for sunspot generation is understood.

    That is exactly what the primary drive has been behind this website. To try to bring together the various lines of investigation and discoveries we have made here I wrote a short essay, now in need of an update:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/2010/01/15/what-is-the-solar-planetary-theory/

    In addition, I’d like to draw attention to the following threads:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/breakthrough-major-discovery-on-planetary-solar-connection/

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/the-curry-challenge-climate-theory-in-750-words/

    I agree with Hans that understanding the mechanisms which cause solar variability is the highest priority in understanding climate change on Earth (and other planets). Building on Hans’ work, Nikolov and Zeller have advanced our knowledge of the way solar activity interacts with our climate system and other planetary surfaces. With their astrophysics-astronomical approach and Hans’ meteorological approach, plus some input from people here at the talkshop and at other solar-planetary theory oriented sites, I think we are making good progress in setting out the basis for a better paradigm within which to build a framework of understanding.

    To find the answers to your question I wrote my thesis “Wind Controlled Climate”

    Erl and Roger Andrews have expressed an interest in reading Hans’ thesis. Would it be possible for us to buy a copy using funds previously donated to this site (before the police raid and the legal fund appeal) with an understanding it can be shared by a small number of interested parties?

  55. Hans says:

    Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
    January 7, 2012 at 10:32 am
    “isn’t there something magical in IR being absorbed by liquids and solids of all sorts, but going through gases of the wrong kind basically untouched?”

    Probably your intuition is on targeet here. Let´s start with an undeniable observational fact. Input absorbed solar power approximately equal output IR power in any atmospher bearing planet (the deviation is biggest in Jupiter which also have an inner energy source).

    From where are all these photons emitted? A few are coming directly from the surface of earth. A great part is coming from all type of liquid and solid particles like, ice chrystals, snow flakes,salt particles, mini droplets, rain drops. dust particles etc. Solids and liquids are better IR emitters than greenhouse gases. However, the TEMPERATURES from where these photons are sent are identified by emission from carbon dioxid/and or water molecules.

    The energy balance claim reaveals that most energy is sent to space from a layer in the atmosphere with a density around 0.1-0.2 bar. This is true also for Venus and the great planets. The question is if how much (% in different planets) of the emitted IR emission power (Watt/m^2) can actually be proven to come from greenhouse gas molecules? Also consider the fact that there is no carbondioxid available in the atmospheres of the giant planets.

    It would be nice to hear from any expert with knowledge about these questions. Another relevant question is: if “Greenhouse gases” contribute with all the power from the atmospheric gas state, wouldn´t it be enough with just a minimum amount which could be activated at different rates by the overwhelming majority of non-greenhouse gases?

  56. Joe Born says:

    Hans:

    Could you use different words to say what you mean by the last sentence in “From where are all these photons emitted? A few are coming directly from the surface of earth. A great part is coming from all type of liquid and solid particles like, ice chrystals, snow flakes,salt particles, mini droplets, rain drops. dust particles etc. Solids and liquids are better IR emitters than greenhouse gases. However, the TEMPERATURES from where these photons are sent are identified by emission from carbon dioxid/and or water molecules.”?

    I infer the following from the first four sentences above and “The energy balance claim reveals that most energy is sent to space from a layer in the atmosphere with a density around 0.1-0.2 bar.” Some infrared-radiation photons received in space from the Earth have traveled all the way from the surface through the atmosphere without interaction, but most received in space were emitted from up in the atmosphere, with the weighted average of the locations from which they were emitted being an altitude having a pressure between 0.1 and 0.2 bar. And a large proportion of those photons were last omitted by liquid and solid particles in the atmosphere.

    This leaves what was meant by “However, the TEMPERATURES from where these photons are sent are identified by emission from carbon dioxid/and or water molecules.” Parsing that sentence, one could (no doubt incorrectly) understand you to say that spectroscopy equipment in a satellite can in infer from the infrared spectrum a histogram of the temperatures at the altitudes where the photons originated, i.e., plot numbers of photons vs. temperature at the altitudes from which they originated, and that this inference can be drawn from spectral lines characteristic of greenhouse gases.

    I apologize in advance if this question seems stupid, but I’m not at all sure there aren’t many lurkers out there who have the same question but are too embarrassed to ask.

  57. Tenuc says:

    Hans says:
    January 7, 2012 at 8:35 am
    “…One answer is that the climate system is too complex to be understood at all. Another is that some subsystems can be fairly well understood…”

    My view too, and refreshing to hear from a scientist! That’s why I like Stephen Wilde’s top down approach, which seems to answer a lot of questions.

    Weather/climate is a large messy system and perhaps we need to look at it regionally over short periods, rather than smearing the data and losing detail by the current practice of using long term global means.

  58. Joe Born says:

    Hans:

    Okay, while I’m at it, I’ll ask another question everyone else seems to know the answer to.

    It concerns a relationship you implied in “The energy balance claim reveals that most energy is sent to space from a layer in the atmosphere with a density around 0.1-0.2 bar.” The energy balance requires some level of emission, and that level implies some radiation-equivalent temperature through the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. But it is not self-evident to me that this tells us where most photons come from; i.e., it is not self-evident that the mode of the temperatures at the altitudes from which the photons originated is the temperature the radiated power specifies through the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. How does it?

    Hans, I’ll understand perfectly if you decline to spend any more time trying to teach a layman physics; I’m just offering the opportunity in case you think there’s any benefit to it.

  59. iya says:

    “The question is if how much (% in different planets) of the emitted IR emission power (Watt/m^2) can actually be proven to come from greenhouse gas molecules? Also consider the fact that there is no carbondioxid available in the atmospheres of the giant planets.”

    Look at the spectra that I posted above. There’s little H2O over Antarctica, so almost all radiation is from the surface and CO2. There’s some overlap between the H2O and CO2 bands, but from temperature and wavelength, you can generally tell what was emitted by which species.
    The gas giants have little CO2, but many different kind of clouds, which are good infrared emitter.

  60. Aussie says:

    Hans,

    thank you very much for helping me to gain some perspective on this subject.

  61. Stephen Wilde says:

    As regards my ‘top down’ approach kindly mentioned by Tenuc I’ve been looking through that thesis of Hans who sent me a copy direct as arranged by Erl.

    What I see is a lot of good stuff about the details of the inter relationships between air masses in different regions and links to solar and oceanic influences.

    Fortunately, as far as I can see (Hans should tell me if I am wrong) it all fits well enough within the simple(ish) description that I have set out.

    Likewise, so far the work of N & Z seems to fit too but I await their full paper in due course.

    Once one proposes a suitable top down solar effect influencing the intensity of the polar vortices, the tropopause heights around the poles and the surface extent of the polar air masses then most of the observed climate shifts can be accommodated, especially the Mobile Polar High concept of Marcel Leroux.

    Modulation from the bottom up from internal oceanic variability can then explain the problems of lack of correlation between shorter term solar and climate events but on the timescale of 500/1000 years as per MWP to LIA to date the solar influence seems clear.

    The issue of adiabatic lapse rates is always in the background and many are now focusing on that. If gravity via pressure at the surface does indeed set an inviolable minimum baseline lapse rate then all climate change must be a consequence of internal system variability and external (solar) forcing combining at any given moment to try to alter that baseline lapse rate to the actual lapse rate which we observe (the environmental lapse rate).

    To the extent that such other influences are successful one would then see a latitudinal shift of all the permanent climate zones in order to adjust the rate of energy flow through the system and so maintain equilibrium.

    Hans’s work looks to be a very useful summary of all the varying climate phenomena changes that could follow on from or be associated with such climate zone shifting.

    A lot of atternition is now going into the issues of cloudiness and albedo because the late 20th century showed reducing cloudiness and warming oceans at a time of active sun and now with a quieter sun we seem to be seeing increasing cloudiness and oceans no longer warming.

    We also saw a cessation of stratospheric cooling during the late 90s as solar activity started to decline from the peak of cycle 23.

    That change in the stratospheric temperature trend could be a key diagnostic indicator relating as it does to tropopause height and the environmental (as opposed to adiabatic) lapse rate.

    The main thing I would now like to resolve is whether the Svensmark suggestion of more clouds due to more cosmic rays at a time of less active sun is sufficient on its own to result in all the changes we observe.

    I suspect not because a simple change in numbers of cloud seeding particles seems unlikely to produce the observed changes in the atmospheric heights such as a rising tropopause during a warming spell and most likely a lowering tropopause during a cooling spell.

    To my mind it seems far more likely that the cause of changes in total cloudiness would be due to more (or less) meridional jet streams. That requires changes in the vertical temperature profile of the entire atmosphere. Whether that could also be linked to more cosmic rays remains to be seen.

    I think it is more likely to be a matter of ozone quantity changes above 45km which have turned out to be the opposite of what was expected:

    http://heliophysics.nasa.gov/SolarMinimum24/ionoatmos/Merkel.pdf

    That finding, if it reverses the temperature response to solar variability in the mesosphere AND stratosphere would support my proposals as regards the changes in atmospheric heights required to produce poleward climate zone shifting when the sun is active and equatorward shifting when the sun is inactive.

    We need a cooling stratosphere at the poles for the climate zones to shift poleward yet the consensus view was always that the stratosphere should warm from an active sun.

    In fact the stratosphere cooled when the sun was more active and has now stopped cooling with a less active sun so something is clearly amiss.

    The earlier attribution of the cooling stratosphere to human GHG emissions is now looking highly suspect.

  62. tallbloke says:

    OK Adolfo, you can come back now. ;)

  63. Tenuc says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 8, 2012 at 1:08 am
    “…The main thing I would now like to resolve is whether the Svensmark suggestion of more clouds due to more cosmic rays at a time of less active sun is sufficient on its own to result in all the changes we observe.

    I suspect not because a simple change in numbers of cloud seeding particles seems unlikely to produce the observed changes in the atmospheric heights such as a rising tropopause during a warming spell and most likely a lowering tropopause during a cooling spell…”

    We know, thanks to CERN, that cosmic rays do produce cloud seeding precursors, but it takes the correct conditions of water vapour/pressure/temp to form clouds, as well as seeds. So perhaps the Svenmark effect increases the probability of clouds when conditions are right but there is a shortage of nucleation particles? Another thought is that perhaps the extra particles produce thicker cloud?

    I don’t think this contradicts moving zonal cloud belt shifts.

  64. J Martin says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 8, 2012 at 1:08 am
    ” The earlier attribution of the cooling stratosphere to human GHG emissions is now looking highly suspect. ”

    Highly suspect ? Classical English understatement in this case meaning “dead and buried”.

    PS. Thanks for the concise overview you offered above. Sometimes it is difficult to understand some posts as I’m looking at a narrow part of the whole scene without sufficient understanding of any of it, and so it helps to have an overview to allow me to begin to put things in their place and to start to see how different elements interact.

    Although my primary interest is in orbital patterns and glaciations, where I have much to learn, though some of it may well turn out to have no real relevance, I nonetheless find it fascinating.

  65. tallbloke says:

    J Martin. We have had a couple of discussions about Milankovitch cycles here at the talkshop:
    Put his name in the search box above the solar wind graphs on the left if you want to see them.

    Regarding the co2 greenhouse effect; if it has been struck a mortal blow, then well and good. It will be a while before it stops thrashing around and lies down though. Let’s wait and see if Nikolov and Zeller succeed in getting their papers published before we start digging the grave.

  66. In the context of public debate, the “greenhouse effect” is not about radiative equilibria with and without an atmosphere, or even with or without “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. It is about whether atmospheric temperature at the surface (or at any given pressure level) increases with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. I am astonished that even skeptics cannot focus upon this obvious fact in the real world; everyone can’t seem to stop themselves from launching into radiative transfer theory arguments. And in that context, of the public and political debate — that irreducible, unarguable reality — the FACT (not theory) is, my utterly simple and transparent comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth demonstrates there is no such greenhouse effect, whatsoever. All the supposedly learned theorizing by one and all is precisely worthless, because everyone uses it to ignore the simple, definitive fact that disproves the tyrannously-promulgated carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and reveals the radiative transfer theory as unconnected from the real thermodynamics of the atmosphere. (And that last should be obvious, since the radiative theory ASSUMES a fixed temperature distribution, with every incremental layer of the atmosphere at thermal equilibrium. So the radiation levels in the atmosphere are, by that assumption, the EFFECT, not the CAUSE, of the thermodynamics — the radiative EFFECT of the gravitationally-imposed tropospheric lapse rate.) The IPCC-sponsored consensus has gotten the physics exactly and wrong-headedly backward, and only the definitive facts, provided by the Venus/Earth comparison, can save the science. And again, I don’t claim to have all the answers, I only have the definitive facts on my side, which everyone will have to accept, in the end.

  67. malagaview says:

    Harry Dale Huffman says:
    All the supposedly learned theorizing by one and all is precisely worthless, because everyone uses it to ignore the simple, definitive fact that disproves the tyrannously-promulgated carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and reveals the radiative transfer theory as unconnected from the real thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

    THANK YOU for your wonderful words.

    I totally agree that the supposedly learned theorizing by one and all is precisely worthless when we have actual atmospheric measurements from the Earth and Venus.

    What I find very chilling is the deafening silence to your comments from the learned theorisers.

  68. Michael Hart says:

    Harry Dale Huffman,

    That’s certainly a very thought provoking visit to your page.
    [But don’t be so shy. Say what you really think :)]
    Given me plenty more to think about.

  69. Brian H says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 8, 2012 at 1:08 am

    The earlier attribution of [pretty much anything whatsoever] to human GHG emissions is now looking highly suspect. ;)
    There, fixed it for you/us/the world.