Hans Jelbring: Back Radiation and Observational Meteorologial Evidence

Posted: March 16, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, Energy, general circulation, weather

IR Back Radiation and

Observational Meteorologial Evidence from Karesuando,

Sweden at Latitude 68 N, 326 m asl

Hans Jelbring

BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, PhD, institution of Paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University

Background

There is a wealth of Swedish meteorological data since about 300 years ago which has been read 3 times a day at 7 AM, 1 PM and 7 PM. Added to that minimum and maximum temperatures are collected. The variables are pressure, air temperature, water vapor pressure, relative humidity, wind speed , wind direction , cloudiness (a scale 1-8 parts of sky covered by clouds), precipitation, snow cover depth and general weather (raining, snowing mist etc.).

For a long time such data could be bought in a yearly book “Meteorological Observations in Sweden” covering data from 14 of the biggest Swedish stations until they stopped producing them and I think that 1977 was the last year of publication. The accumulated amount of meteorological data that exists in Sweden is just staggering.

The preoccupation with one single meteorological variable such as global temperature is misleading in several ways. The physics in the atmosphere only works in real time at a specific place. Any averaging destroys or limits the possibility to identify and check the processes at hand in the real atmosphere. It is also necessary to observe several variables at the same time to develop well found ideas about how the physical processes interact with each other and which ones are dominating at specific times and places. To do this prime data times series are of profound importance. Such series are found in abundance in the excellent publication “Meteorological Observations in Sweden”. I personally own this publication from 1922-1977.

By chance I found an old chart I made at least 30 years ago which you can see below. It shows wind, cloud and temperature time series from Karesuando during four months, January, March, July and November. Karesuando is situated quite far above the polar circle so during January there is no solar irradiation at all reaching the station.

Wind, Cloud and Temperature data from Karesusando

Click for full size image

A message from nature about cloud cover, temperature and wind

The time series show 4 values per 24 hour period. It is possible to observe daily variations as well as cold spells covering several days up to a week. Of special interest is to see how well the cloud cover is correlated with temperature during different seasons. The wind speed can be checked to separate between local and regional influences. If there is no wind speed the influence is for sure more local. When there is no solar insolation the daily temperature variations are minimal as can be seen in the January time series. On the contrary the July temperature time series express a much larger daily temperature variation although the amplitude varies. The strongest daily temperature variation in Karesuando can be found in Mars [March] during a five day period with no or little clouds and hardly any wind. All this is actually nothing new. Any Swedish farmer knows about such variations, without knowing anything about for example “IR back radiation” and its presumed power to destroy earth in the future.

One deduction about the existence of IR back radiation in nature.

The Karesuando temperature time series show temperature swings within a week between 20 and 30 degrees Celsius. That is a lot. They can be observed in late January, Late March and late November. All the maximum temperature swings occur during calm conditions when there was no or little wind in Karesuando for days. It tells a simple truth. The cold air is (partially) produced locally at the surface of Karesuando during these 2-3 days periods. This can only happen by strong IR radiation from the ground when there are no or little clouds in the sky. On the other hand it can be observed that the temperature in Karesuando always are warmer when there is a full cloud cover during periods with large solar energy deficits as there were in January, March and November.

The global warming belief and the impact of carbon dioxide on climate belief (AGW) rely on a hypothetical existence of a large IR back radiation (+300 W/m^2) working both day and night. If there exists an IR back radiation of practical importance it is only developed when there is a cloud cover. In that case it is not carbon dioxide that emits the IR radiation downwards; it is ice crystals or water droplets.

My simple question to IPCC and all global warming enthusiasts believing in global warming is: How can you explain the observed evidence from Karesuando and still claim there is any scientific reason to believe in the existence of a +300 W/m^2 back radiation working both day and night? Any person can feel the impact of such an energy flow by holding ones hand near an electrical 2kW kitchen stove at a distance of about 1 meter.

There is absolutely no need for me to get this common sense article peer reviewed and acknowledged by IPCC or any other main stream authority. Observational evidence such as the meteorological data from Karesuando beats any unproven hypothesis if these two options are incompatible. My conclusion is:

The IR back radiation of +300 W/m² that IPCC claims to be a reality does not exist at (close to) a  measurable level. The net IR back radiation that does exist and matter quantitatively (besides from sun) has its origin from clouds and dust in the atmosphere and not from any “greenhouse gas” IR emission.

Also notice that the time series from Karesuando are not showing anomalous situations. It can be supported by similar time series during more than 100 years from Karesuando and many other Swedish meteorological stations.

Reference:

Modern data from Karesuando, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrolocal Institute (SMHI) http://www.vackertvader.se/v%C3%A4derstation/karesuando-2

[post updated 2012 20:47 -T]

Comments
  1. Zeke says:

    “The global warming belief and the impact of carbon dioxide on climate belief (AGW) rely on a hypothetical existence of a large IR back radiation (+300 W/m^2) working both day and night. If there exists an IR back radiation of practical importance it is only developed when there is a cloud cover. In that case it is not carbon dioxide that emits the IR radiation downwards; it is ice crystals or water droplets.”

    Is this why they overcount sunspots, to calculate a steady TSI and preserve the 300W/m2 in the models?

  2. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, two researchers, shall we call them T&K, decided after their high school physics to assume that the IR energy radiated from the Earth’s surface was that from the S-B equation for an average temperature of 15°C.

    It’s shown here:

    Notice the additional thermals and evapotranspiration. They hadn’t a clue because unlike me they had never studied process engineering. This is how you calculate combined convection and radiation: http://www.freestudy.co.uk/heat%20transfer/convrad.pdf

    [You can’t separate them because the same activated state on the surface can eject a photon or transfer the energy to an adsorbed gas molecule.]

    You must use an empirical heat transfer coefficient which is a function of gas velocity parallel to the surface. What they do is to assume radiation is 390 W/m^2, on a bloody ill-educated whim. That’s a black body in a vacuum.

    In order to get the rest of the sums to match they (1) assume ‘back radiation’ can do work when it’s really half the Prevost Exchange Energy Field, a standing wave. Then they offset this high warming by assuming twice the real optical depth of low level clouds plus a variable negative net AIE based on faulty cloud physics [I have fixed it].

    There is no back radiation. The real IR from the ground is ~66 W/m^2 and the discrepancy in the predicted GHG warming and back radiation, and reality, is enormous so can only be explained by changing the IR physics.

    So, mate, like me you’ve been conned by these people. It’s a pity about K because he has got a scientist’s mind if only he was allowed to become a free thinker like me. But he’s employed, and I’m not. Go figure!

  3. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    tchannon: the only scientific discipline which imagines ‘back radiation’ can do thermodynamic work is oxymoronic ‘climate science’..

    Every other physics based discipline knows that this is a humongous mistake made by people who didn’t know what they were doing and can’t back down because there is so much investment in this myth and the others they created to make the sums add up.

    And if you get to the basic physics, you only detect it because you shield the detector from the exactly opposite part of the standing wave from the hotter radiator.

    This is probably the most serious scientific mistake in history.

  4. David Appell says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says:
    And if you get to the basic physics, you only detect it because you shield the detector from the exactly opposite part of the standing wave from the hotter radiator.

    Not if you use a planar sensor mounted vertically.

  5. scousebilly says:

    mdgnn @ 6.08pm

    Thank you – that made me laugh out loud – copied for future reference ;)

  6. Chris M says:

    Looks like Trenberth’s cartoon is a travesty, and my long-held hunch (nay great unease) that “It just doesn’t look right” is correct. (Another grammatical conundrum for you Tim.)

  7. Steven Mosher says:

    “The global warming belief and the impact of carbon dioxide on climate belief (AGW) rely on a hypothetical existence of a large IR back radiation (+300 W/m^2) working both day and night. If there exists an IR back radiation of practical importance it is only developed when there is a cloud cover. In that case it is not carbon dioxide that emits the IR radiation downwards; it is ice crystals or water droplets.”

    Wrong.

  8. erl happ says:

    Could it be that the presence of clouds indicates that the air has come from the warm moist tropics and is warm, not because of so called ‘back radiation’ but simply due to its origin? For a global perspective on the manner in which warm moist air travels poleward see http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/TPW/global.htm

  9. Hans says:

    Steven Mosher says: March 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    “The global warming belief and the impact of carbon dioxide on climate belief (AGW) rely on a hypothetical existence of a large IR back radiation (+300 W/m^2) working both day and night. If there exists an IR back radiation of practical importance it is only developed when there is a cloud cover. In that case it is not carbon dioxide that emits the IR radiation downwards; it is ice crystals or water droplets.”

    Wrong.

    Steven, good for you to have a belief. In civilized contries there is freedom to chose religion. What about commenting on the evidence shown which is essential in the realm of science which deals with facts?

  10. tallbloke says:

    Mosh, argument by assertion is piss poor behaviour.

  11. Hans says:

    erl happ says: March 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    “Could it be that the presence of clouds indicates that the air has come from the warm moist tropics and is warm, not because of so called ‘back radiation’ but simply due to its origin? For a global perspective on the manner in which warm moist air travels poleward see http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/TPW/global.htm

    Earl, clouds are forming when most air is rising. If I show the full set of variables from Karesuando you will see that precipitation and clouds do form during low pressure situations (rising air). The energy brought to the atmosphere in Karesuando during January has been brought from the equatorial region as you suggest. This energy is delivered to the surface in different ways. This is somewhat paradoxal and and needs a thread by itself.

  12. David Appell says:

    Speaking of evidence, Hans (8:20 pm), how about noting that backradiation been detected, not by theorizing about it and ruling it out, but by doing actual measurements:

    “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

    “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,”
    W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
    ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

    I realize these are inconvenient to your arguments, which is why Roger usually suppresses these kind of comments, in my experience.

    [Reply] “Speaking of evidence” do you have any which shows I have previously suppressed any post you’ve made? I for one am interested in real world measurements, which seem thin on the ground. I’m also interested in the instrumentation and the metadata regarding it.

  13. sergeiMK says:

    http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/powerpoint/ch6_GP.ppt

    Look for slide 9 the nimbus satellite and ground based ftir page.
    This shows measured spectra from sky and from ground.
    What is missing going up and lost too space is present in excess coming down.

    Note also slide 10 this shows that solar LWIR is less than earth outgoing LWIR at the earth’s surface (this takes into account the distance to sun).

    http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf

    Take a look at figure 3 Downward long wave irradiance This is real data measured using many instruments and shows that night can sometime irradiate downwards at 380w/sqm and some times as low as 260W/sqm
    This is at location 36° 36′ 18.0″ N, 97° 29′ 6.0″ W approx

    http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf

    Check out figure 1 Downward Long Wave Irradiance measured in winter (March ) so low H2O vapour at 71.290556°n -156.788611°w approx. Both night and day very similar irradiance at about 140W/sq m

    These are MEASURED quantities. for all downward radiation. In the case of the Barrow measurements these were made in winter to minimise water vapour in the atmosphere.

    It seems to me that there is downward long wave irradiance proven by these measurements.
    It is not insignificant
    It is not ALL from H2O
    N2 O2 do not radiate so the measurements are not from these constituents of the atmosphere
    It can only come from GHGs

    Where does Hans Jelbring believe these irradiances are coming from? Why does he believe they are insignificant?

  14. Chris M says:

    I have just had a lightbulb moment which obviates the need for the cartoon’s obnoxious 350W/m^2 of surface absorbed back radiation. There is simply no need for it!

    The key is that the incoming SWR of 168 W/m^2 *accumulates* in solid surfaces and oceans to explain (almost entirely, I would think) the outgoing LWIR of 390 W/m^2. So there should be an arrow between the left and right sides of the diagram annotated ‘(168) accumulates to (whatever the actual figure is close to 390)’. It is clear that the ground and oceans act as heat reservoirs; surely that cannot be disputed.

    The heat reservoirs thus provide for more energy within the atmosphere than would otherwise be available to do various things via energy conversion – wind, rain, lightning, plant growth to name a few. The earth becomes a more dynamic place. Dull recycling of the same form of energy (LWIR) back into the surface is absurd. To give just one example: How much work is done when winds rustle billions of leaves across the world? Any surface reabsorption of back radiation is thus relegated to the presumably trivial place it has in the overall scheme of things.

    The final piece of the puzzle is that we know the earth to be in radiative balance, so 240 W/m^2 of absorbed incoming SWR = 240 W/m^2 OLWR. The seeming “extra” 222 W/m^2 (390 -168) is not extra at all. It is energy which is delayed in its release by the heat reservoirs, resulting in our life-friendly tropospheric temperature ranges.

    [Minor corrigendum: In the above version of the cartoon surface-absorbed DLWR is 324 W/m^2 and in the NASA energy balance diagram 340 W/m^2. This doesn’t affect my hypothesis in any way. ]

    At the moment I can’t see any flaws in my argument. If there are major ones I’ll of course be disappointed but hey *shrugs* c’est la vie.

  15. David Appell says:

    The two papers I gave above *are* real world measurements, made with instruments.

  16. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Chris M: 1.57 am. The reason I did not give the real engineering solution to the problem of combined convection and radiation is that it requires a lot of computing to solve the transfer equations. It is tough. I used to do it from tables of empirical constants portrayed in terms of dimensional numbers – see McAdams or Jakob and Hawkins, both written 70 years’ ago.

    Now, let’s look at the cartoon and extract the real data. Incoming absorbed by the Earth’s surface = 168 W/m^2. Outgoing = 66 IR, 76 evapo-transpiration and 24 thermals = 168 W/m^2.

    The water vapour which takes the 78 latent heat aloft is returned as rain/snow so the heat is converted to sensible heat in the air, giving convection.

    So, how do we get the 235 TOA to space? 235 – 168 = 67. This is the 67 absorbed by the atmosphere. But there is also another real experimental value, it’s the 40 IR via the atmospheric window. That comes off the 66 net IR so only 26 IR from the ground is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is very different to the claimed 350! [350-26 = 324 ‘back radiation’.]

    PS the 324 is about the flux from a 2 kW electric bar heater at 2 m. You can feel this easily on the face and the back of the hand. You cant feel the IR which is claimed to come down from clouds! Apart from the experimental values, this whole analysis is total bunkum.

    So, where now? The real issue: where is the 26 + 67 absorbed by the atmosphere thermalised? The real experiment done by Hug shows that the IPCC’s claimed radiative forcing is 80 times higher than the experimental value: http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

    What’s more, he used a glass cylinder so much of that heating may have been from the walls of the container. Nahle has recently shown that if you hold CO2 in a Mylar balloon, there is no warming.

    Look at the comments to Hug’s report and Spencer’s is prominent. ‘What he has neglected is the VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION of the change in radiative processes due to a doubling of CO2. For instance, the strong upper stratospheric cooling (peaking near 2 mb) in response to increasing CO2 would, by itself, require warming at some lower level in order to maintain radiative balance, even if the entire atmospheric column is essentially opaque. This upper level cooling (observationally documented by Kokin & Lysenko, 1994, J. Atmos. Terrest. Phys., pp. 1035-1040) and lower level warming is a common feature of all greenhouse atmospheres that are subjected to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The equilibrium temperature change at any specific level (including the surface) can NOT be determined by intuition. It requires time-dependent radiative transfer calculations throughout the entire atmospheric profile. This has been performed by many people (including ourselves).’

    Look at this in detail. What Spencer assumes is that the IR from the ground is absorbed more strongly by the air near the ground when CO2 doubles so less IR is absorbed higher up. But the CO2 part of GHG warming is very small compared with the H2O part and the atmosphere is known to undergoes changes in stratospheric H2O level [25% fall has been quoted by NASA].

    I suspect these people have made an assumption based on an experimental artefact [heating by the walls of the vessel] which may be badly wrong and have since then been searching in the wrong area and constructing ever more fanciful models. This is a mess.

  17. Chris M says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:25 am

    Thanks Mydogs, yes I was aware of most of those net figures, but hadn’t thought about the net 26 W/m^2 of OLWR. My hypothesis is of course reliant on the assumption that there is a measurable difference between global-averaged surface-emitted OLWR and surface-absorbed SWR. Whether 390 vs.168 W/m^2 has actually been measured, or is derived in some arcane way from other data, I have no way of knowing without finding the source of the 390; hopefully, unless someone has the answer to hand, I will eventually stumble upon the number’s origin.

    So, assuming that OLWR at the surface exceeds absorbed SWR by some margin (the 390 does not have to be correct, just a number greater than 168) it has to be explained in some way. The warmists are saying that back radiation from GHGs reheats the surface. I am proposing that this need not apply, as the ground and oceans are heat reservoirs.

  18. wayne says:

    Well put Mydog. You’ve got it. That is so close to what I have come to realize, just plus or minus a few watts/sq.meter here. TB should have a top post on that very topic, for in that lies most of the misunderstanding of many on both sides.

    I’ve enjoyed reading your words, knowing they are the same words I would be saying and you’re doing a hell of a job at it, very clear. For ‘up’ is just one of six orthogonal dirrections in a read 3d world. The Prevost (photon gas) is what keeps us warm here at the surface and by SB, one meter layer at a time, makes the dT so small that little non-window radiation is actually flowing ‘up’ and out without evaporation and convection, for their movement is strictly straight up and IS one-dimensional, but not so in radiation’s case. You’ve got it all right.

  19. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Chris M: 1.5.6704.10^-8.[(273+15)]^4 = 390.1

    They have assumed an emissivity of 1 and a real temperature of just under 15°C. It’s a totally artificial assumption made by people without the most basic knowledge of heat transfer. It’s the radiative flux of a black body in a vacuum. It will be less in air at 1 atmosphere.

    The rule of thumb in metallurgical plant [and you get it from MacAdam or Jakob and Hawkins is that you need >100°C for the radiative flux from a horizontal steel plate [similar emissivity to sand] to exceed the convective flux. For aluminium it’s ~300°C.

    This is confirmed by the 24 + 78 thermal + evapo-transpiration = 102 compared with the 26 real IR

    This is the biggest scientific cock up possibly fraud in History.

  20. Chris M says:

    Oh dear. So why has the K&T cartoon been so impervious to correction for so long? Are these guys teflon-coated or what? And what will it take to get reasonable people like Roy Spencer to alter his views? If he is able to, there would likely be a domino effect big enough to bring the whole AGW edifice crashing down.

  21. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Chris M: I don;t know why the T-K diagram has remained immune but I suspect it’s because it took a long time for people like me with process engineering training plus the post grad physics to investigate the detail.

    Trenberth and Hansen have for decades portrayed themselves as authorities on the subject so have fooled the rest of us and it appears that both are part of a Marxist personality cult.

  22. scousebilly says:

    Mydog – thank you for enumerating the processes.

    I note elsewhere you also state that “back radiation” cannot do thermodynamic work wrt the molecules of the (warmer) surface which is my understanding of the SLoT.

    As an aside I remember arguing the point a couple of years ago with someone who objected with the example of a TV remote control. Funnily enough my TV remote doesn’t work on a sunny day when sunlight falls directly on the sensor – until I draw the curtain, that is ;)

    It seems whichever way you cut it, (see Harry Dale Huffman’s total system analysis of Earth and Venus: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html), there is no missing energy.

    The “cartoon” is an affront to science.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Wayne, I will be making a post with your energy budget sometime soon. It’s very noticeable that NASA has replaced the KT cartoon on their site with a new energy budget diagram which:

    1) Only gives a net figure for Long Wave radiation
    2) Gives the figures as percentages of incident solar energy

    I made a tongue in cheek analysis of it here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/apocalypse-recalculated-whatever-happened-to-back-radiation/

    The ‘greenhouse effect on the moon’ stuff has been superceded by Nikolov and Zeller’s report of the Diviner data, but the conversion of the percentages to watts may be a handy reference.

    I followed up that post with this one, which seems relevant here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/whatever-happened-to-back-radiation-part-ii/

  24. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hi Tallbloke:this NASA diagram specified 24 W/m^2 thermals, 79 W/m^2 evapo-transpiration and 72 W/m^2 net IR from the Earh’s surface, a bit higher than the 1997 T-K diagram’s 66 W/m^2.

    There is no ‘back radiation’

    See this for further details; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%E2%80%9Cearth%E2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%E2%80%9D-contain-a-paradox/.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Mydog: There are those who will say that the ‘back radiation is hidden in the net figure along with surface upward LW radiation. While I’m in general agreement with your analysis above (and think there has been some ‘double counting’ going on in Trenberth’s notepad), we need to find a way of making it all really clear in diagrams and accomanying text. Wayne has made a good start on this with a spreadsheet he has sent me. With his agreement I’ll send you a copy and between us we should be able to nail this with a comprehensive post on the issue.

  26. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Tallbloke; the problem real scientists [and engineers] have in describing why back radiation does not exist is that they all understand the mechanism in different terms.

    The purest definition is in terms of ‘Prevost Exchange Energy’, Law of 1791, way before radiation physics was really invented. What Prevost worked out was that when two bodies are in radiative equilibrium so have exactly the same thermodynamic temperature, there is energy transfer in both ways but because it’s equal both ways, it cancels out.

    Here’s my engineer’s view; the top notch physicists will be unintelligible. Modern physics calls this a standing wave; so what does it do? Well, you must realise that the conversion of energy from heat to electromagnetic radiation takes place in two stages, and vice versa. What this radiation field [a mess of randomly moving solitons in the ether] does is to communicate between the two IR density of states at or in the bodies. In the case of a liquid or gas, it’s the GHG vibrational states. In the case of a solid, it’s less constrained surface molecules.

    Now suddenly reduce the temperature of Body 2. Fewer quanta arrive at the IR states of Body 2 from internal molecular motion so part of the IR energy from Body 1 that had been doing nothing because there weren’t empty states to fill, finds there are holes in that band. This means more of the IR density of states at Body 2 is energy from Body 1 than from the interior of Body 2, and with equal probability that that filled state will emit back to Body 1 or go into Body 2, there is net heat transfer from Body 1 to Body 2.

    A key concept here is the principle of indistinguishability in statistical thermodynamics; molecules do not have memory. At Body 1, more quanta come from the interior than are received from Body 1 so the net difference is the same as at Body 2, one directional energy flow, hotter to colder.

    Thus the exchange energy regulates IR flux via the statistical thermodynamics of the IR density of states; ‘back radiation’, measured by shielding one half of the radiation field, can do no thermodynamic work because it can never be converted to heat at the hotter body.

    The principle of indistinguishability is also why the climate science arguments about excited molecules losing energy in dribs and drabs before re-emitting is bunkum. So long as temperature is high enough for the average delay period for emission by another thermally excited molecule to be short enough, that emission will restore Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium so I argue there is little no driving force for direct thermalisation of IR vibrational energy.

    [Reply] Thanks for this. I got your email addy and hid the comment containing it so third parties can’t abuse it.

  27. Chris M says:

    Just to let you know tallbloke, this K&T cartoon on a NASA site is still current. I suspect there are factions within NASA, with GISS on the far left.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    [Reply] I understand that in America, the climate issue has folks divided more or less along party lines. However, in Europe and perhaps elsewhere the situation is much more complex. So for the sake of international harmony within the Talkshop readership, can I ask please that we restrict categorisation generalities to ‘warmists’ and ‘sceptics’ or similar, and leave political categories out of our discourse. Thanks – TB

  28. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Tallbloke; the way to take this discussion out of politics is the engineering facts. Irish data show that at 30% wind energy, their grid produces ~35% more CO2/kWhr, Figure 7 here: http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html.

    Any wind energy above ~10% of instantaneous demand is negatively green!

    [Reply] 100% agree, scientific facts beat political rhetoric every time!
    :)

  29. A. C. Osborn says:

    sergeiMK says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:41 am
    Both night and day very similar irradiance at about 140W/sq m

    These are MEASURED quantities.

    Nobody, but nobody has ever got any “Work” or “Heat” out of that 140 W/sq m and ground level.
    So it is just a meaningless “Measurement”.

  30. A. C. Osborn says:

    David Appell says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:19 am
    The two papers I gave above *are* real world measurements, made with instruments.
    I say to you the same thing as to sergeiMK

    Nobody, but nobody has ever got any “Work” or “Heat” out of that 140 – 390 W/sq m at ground level.
    So it is just a meaningless “Measurement”.

  31. David Appell says:

    A. C. Osborn says:
    Nobody, but nobody has ever got any “Work” or “Heat” out of that 140 – 390 W/sq m at ground level.
    So it is just a meaningless “Measurement”.

    If you are referring to backradiation…. it’s a lot less than 140 W/m2. In any case, it’s just a real as any other radiation, and so just as available to do work as any other radiation.

    And those papers measure it by spectrometers — so, in fact, that radiation *already* has done work — it’s precisely that work that triggered the spectrometers.

  32. David Appell says:

    scousebilly says:
    It seems whichever way you cut it, (see Harry Dale Huffman’s total system analysis of Earth and Venus: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html), there is no missing energy.

    Again, it is trivial to show that Huffman’s result relies on either setting both planets’ albedo=0, or equal to each other. Neither is justified.

    Details here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/magic-turtle-on-the-wisdom-of-throwing-stones-at-the-greenhouse-theory/#comment-19684

    All Huffman has found is a numerical coincidence that happens to work at one particular set of (p,T). That’s all. It fails everywhere else.

    [Moderation note] A comparison of the values of P and T for Earth and Venus can be found on Harry Dale Huffmans site:


    Perhaps David could define what he means by ‘fails’.

  33. David Appell says:

    Re: my earlier comment in response to A. C. Osborn. I thought his 140 W/m2 was for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, not the total GHE. My bad. I agree with that number for the total.

  34. wayne says:

    tallbloke says:
    March 17, 2012 at 10:47 am
    “With his agreement I’ll send you a copy and between us we should be able to nail this with a comprehensive post on the issue.”

    Sure, send it along to anyone at your discretion, the more input, the better. I did forget to cross-check those figures to the NASA energy budget but the underlying principles stay the same. That is why I said there can be other solutions, but the accounting still has to balance. NASA left out the up and down. I think it is important to show it all and they both seem to fail in that respect.

    I do agree with Hans thought that it is the cloud particles of water (and other non-gas substances in the air) that are the primary reason for any measurable downward radiation from the atmosphere, once the Prevost portion has been removed from the analysis.

    That seems why David Appell and many other get so confused on radiative measurements from the atmosphere, they never separate the local, and-always-there portion from other real processes. They say, pointing a radiometer upward, that the measurement is “back-radiation” and that is such a wrong thought. The greatest portion measured is the radiation from a warm atmosphere in the first place, local. Mydog calls it Prevost radiation and that as good a term as any, some call it photon gas. I used to call it local resonance. Even Wikipedia expounds on its more modern terms but that is exactly the portion of radiation NOT computed by SB, when using delta T and emissivity properly and local, it is what is there locally by the temperature and emissivity. It is very local radiation and always there, for the atmosphere is not at absolute zero and with a density-adjusted emissivity applied between those two very local vertical layers in the atmosphere. If you want to talk of downward radiation from ghgs high in the atmosphere you must first be removed this large portion from any discussion, for any planet with an atmosphere has this local effect, and it is a big adjustment… roughly an average somewhere between 280 & 333 W/m2. The thicker and warmer the atmosphere, the greater is the local resident radiation at the surface (or really at and between any vertical two adjacent layers). It seems important to me to specify exactly which two layers and the scales are under discussion or thoughts tangle and you end up with mush.

    It also seems if you let the albedo stand as 0.30 and reduce the emissivity of the atmosphere as a whole to 0.755 all numbers start to agree. And you know, that same figure was computed from a Mariner craft looking back on the Earth on the way to Mars but I seem to have lost the link. More on albedo and emissivity later (a hint… they are a ratio when moved out from under the radical or moved under the radical as a ratio as a pair). Something like T = root4((1-a)/e) * root4(S0/sig) … it is the ratio of the albedo to emissivity that is important, you can’t meaningfully separate the two. I am beginning to understand that if albedo changes, the emissivity likewise changes, and by that ratio, that has huge effects.

    Just some thoughts.

  35. David Appell says:

    Chris M says:
    The key is that the incoming SWR of 168 W/m^2 *accumulates* in solid surfaces and oceans to explain (almost entirely, I would think) the outgoing LWIR of 390 W/m^2.

    That would, of course, seriously violate conservation of energy.

    Energy only accumulates in an object until an equilibrium is reached, at which point the energy it absorbs equals the energy it radiates. An object can’t accumulate energy indefinitely, and it it can’t give off more energy that it absorbs indefinitely.

  36. David Appell says:

    wayne says:
    The greatest portion measured is the radiation from a warm atmosphere in the first place, local….The thicker and warmer the atmosphere, the greater is the local resident radiation at the surface (or really at and between any vertical two adjacent layers).

    That’s exactly what backradiation is — radiation from a warm atmosphere. It’s warm because some of its gases are absorbing radiation, and then they reradiate. More GH gases = more absoption = more radiation. That *is* global warming.

    So of course there is more radiation if an atmosphere is warmer….

    You’re overthinking this. To be sure, it’s very nontrivial to add up the cumulative effect of the GHGs absorbing outgoing LW radiation from the surface and then reradiating it all directions, because there are pressure and temperature effects, etc. But the basic picture isn’t that complicated….

  37. David Appell says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says:
    What this radiation field [a mess of randomly moving solitons in the ether] does is to communicate between the two IR density of states at or in the bodies.

    You keep referring to photons as solitons, but they’re not.

    The primary characteristic of soliton waves is that their tendency to disperse is cancelled by specific (nonlinear) properties of the medium they travel in. This can only happen for wave packets, i.e. waves that contain more than a single frequency.

    An electromagnetic wave (photon) is self-reinforcing, but it is even for a single frequency, and it is even though it travels through a vacuum.

    Also, solitons travel through one another (with, at most, a phase shift). Photons don’t travel through one another — their scattering off one another is strongly dependent on the total energy (it varies as its 6th power), and it also depends on the angle between them.

    Also, of course, there is no “ether.”

    Electrodynamics is complicated enough without mixing terminologies for different phenomena with different characteristics.

  38. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hi David: four points.

    1. Planck invented the concept of the photon for his own c0onvolved reasons and it later explained why the ‘Ultraviolet Catastrophe’ doesn’t exist..

    2. I’m unhappy about Prevost Exchange Energy being photons as such, although because it’s not coherent, it isn’t strictly a standing wave. There must be another characteristic we don’t know to explain why when a ‘photon’ finds an occupied IR vibrational state, it reverses to head back from whence it came!

    3. The radiative flux from any object is a function of T^4 and emissivity. The emissivity of GHG containing atmospheres was calculated by Hottell and is really set by optical depth. In the desert it’ll be ~0.1. Here it’s about ~0.2 on a clear night. Under a cloud it can be up to ~0.9.

    4. Daytime DWLR will have a major component of scattered SW radiation converted into LW radiation at aerosols etc.

    So long as there is no temperature inversion, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere in the absorption zone near the earth’s surface will be UWLR-DWLR. Th Trenberth Kiehl claim that it is the net radiation plus the DWLR goes against every other standard teaching dating back a Century. Arrhenius was debunked by Niels Bohr and the only reason he has been resurrected is in my view political

  39. wayne says:

    David: “That’s exactly what backradiation is — radiation from a warm atmosphere. It’s warm because some of its gases are absorbing radiation, and then they reradiate. More GH gases = more absoption = more radiation. That *is* global warming.”

    Hi David. no, that is not “global warming”. Most radiation from the surface, even as the radiation from the floor in this room, does not go but a few meters without being absorbed (but the window frequencies) and that is not “global warming”, the warming of the first few meters of air at the surface. That is equalization of the surface air with the surface minus a couple of degrees and that shares with simple conduction. But does water vapor and other GHGs absorb, of course.

    As Mydog pointed out above, he is correct and I agree, the net sum of average radiation absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface is about 23 W/m2 and is not enough to do what you seem to imagine.

    To me radiation from a warm atmosphere is just that, radiation, not “back radiation”. It is in all directions and curiously, most is horizontal than in the up or down direction by simple spherical geometry. I guess you could also correctly say there is exactly four times the “side radiation” (2 2/3 steradians) as “back radiation” (2/3 steradians) and it is the predominantly sideways radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted over and over and over again at close proximity when near the surface, and, keeps the thick atmosphere at the surface warm (see Prevost). :-) You notice this sideways radiation absorption on Mars is next to non-existent and that is why Mars is basically at the gray body temperature, radiation can escape to space in five of the six 3d orthogonal directions, in simple logical terms.

  40. dp says:

    Neither the new cartoon nor the old cartoon addresses the loitering time of the incoming energy from the sun as it makes its way back to space. Nor does either discuss the rate of incoming vs the rate of outgoing, nor sequestering. The cartoons state the obvious – all energy that arrives simply leaves. At some point.

    At some point – can’t be said often enough. Changes in this lag time equate to changes in the climate and average temperature. It is impossible to have CO2 in the atmosphere without changing the lag time of the heat exchange from the surface to the space between the stars. I can’t imagine a reality where CO2 density has no impact on this lag.

  41. Hans K says:

    “Mydogsgotnonose says:
    March 17, 2012 at 11:14 am
    What Prevost worked out was that when two bodies are in radiative equilibrium so have exactly the same thermodynamic temperature, there is energy transfer in both ways but because it’s equal both ways, it cancels out.”

    Yes, and for the energy density of radiation according to Hyperphysics :If we consider energy radiated perpendicular to a small increment of area, then it must be noted that half of the energy density in the waves is going toward the walls and half is coming out if the system is in thermal equilibrium.

    And energy density of radiation is directly related to the Stefan-Boltzmann
    law
    .

  42. Chris M says:

    David Appell says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Yes David thanks(?) I have already thought of that. As a climate amateur my musings need be of no import to anyone else, but clearly to my mind oceanic heat is the major driver of climate, and if K&T got paid good money for producing that diagram, well hey, it is also OK for me to be paid nothing to come up with my own version of nonsense.

    Just to clarify, are you a scientist, journo or both? if a journo doesn’t it bother you that the MSM is supporting a gigantic scandal, known for sure since CG1, and confirmed many times since, that may well result in the economic collapse of the West? That’s right David, your culture and mine, our shared heritage. If you are prepared to come to this blog, maybe you are open to the possibility that the IPCC is wrong, because that has been obvious for years now. So if you are a journo, you can make a hero of yourself by announcing: “Yes I was a committed warmist but now I have seen the light, on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence.” Think about it.

  43. kuhnkat says:

    Mydogsgotnonose,

    your explanation of what is happening with DLR and OLR sounds very similar to my understanding of what Claes Johnson is saying. Have you looked at his work??

    It might be worth while: http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/

  44. Hans says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    “….two researchers, shall we call them T&K, decided after their high school physics to assume….”
    and
    “Notice the additional thermals and evapotranspiration. They hadn’t a clue because unlike me they had never studied process engineering.”

    Notice that in the T&K cartoon any values can be replacing 350 and 324 W/m^2 as long as the difference between such a replacement is 26 W/m^2. No other average energy flows will change if that is done.
    The old NASA energy budget correctly just left these imaginary energy flows out and there is an explanation why that is a fair approximation to do. Electromagnetic radiations cannot cancel each other in nature. Light beams can easily cross each other without interacting. If the A&T flows existed I would get energy from two sides when mowing outdoors and I would feel them both with my hands and face as if two suns were shining on me from above and from below, both during day and night.
    This is not the case. The 359 and 324 W/m^2 are model artifacts to try to explain reality and to falsely use the SB law in a case when it is not applicable for the major reason given below.

    The most dominant physical process existing in the lower troposphere is (local) energy equalization
    which is trying to allocate equal amount of energy to any equal atmospheric mass unit. This is the reasult of the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied correctly to energy instead of only temperature meaning that also the impact of gravity is taken into account when treating the real atmosphere. When that succeeds the temperatur lapse rate is proven to be g/Cp as can be often seen in natural measured temperature profiles on daily basis. See also http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/hans-jelbring-an-alternative-derivation-of-the-static-dry-adiabatic-temperature-lapse-rate/ This derivation is approximately correct in a dynamic situation because IR radiation is a secondary process when the atmosphere is close to a local energetic equilibrium (rising air during a sunny day). It means that any net down and upward intra (from atmosphere to atmosphere) IR radiation is close to zero. The SB law is totally inappropriate to apply in that situation and in most other real atmospheric situtations except when IR is radiating to space when it is a fair approximation to reality.

    I fully agree about your second comment above about the importance of understanding heat transfer and such knowledge is quite enough to debunk the T&K cartoon energy flow as you do. But if you want to understand what is happening in nature you have to consider the impact of “energy dissipation” which spontanously is driven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics (including gravity impact). The energy equalizing process(es) are much better developed in the Venusian atmosphere than in the earthly one which makes the discussion of only earthly conditions somewhat hard.

    The energy equlibrium process is disturbed by several other real physical processes such as
    IR radiation from the surface, condensation processes and the creation of inversions by descending air (which makes the air warmer). One intension when creating this thread was to investigate and get opinions from all of you by presenting real data that cannot be refused as such. A special valuable opportunity is to discuss the relevant physics when solar irradiation is turned off which is the cas in Karesuand during january.

    Real physics only work in real time at a specific place. All processes that are included in the atmosphere can never be identified by only treating averages such as are shown in the cartoons from A&t and NASA in this thread. These might be of value to highlight a special influence but not to separate and understand individual physical processes at work and their interactions.

    What I would like to discuss based on the Karesuando data set and other data sets is the fact that the surface of earth is an anomaly zone because solid matter emits IR radiation much better than the atmospheric “greenhouse” gases. Consider a vertical column of air at any place on earth. The minimum total energy/kg of air is ALWAYS close to the surface. The reason is that cold air is sinking until it reaches the ground and/or IR radiation continue to cool the ground especially when there are no clouds as the Karesuando data set clearly shows. IR radiation from the gound produces shallow cool air (surface temperature inveersions) every night when the sky is clear. Just watch the cool night in Sahara as a good example.

  45. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    An instrumental note.

    A pyrgeometer does not measure DWLR. It measures the downward IR minus the upward IR from the black body reference source via a thermistor between the two plates and a calibration curve, to which net flux is added the theoretical IR flux from the black body reference.

    If the reference plate is at the same temperature as the body of the instrument and there is no temperature gradient, that measurement is the ‘Prevost Exchange Energy’, normally exactly offset by the same energy in the opposite direction.

    The action of placing the instrument in the way of the exchange is to create the Prevost signal. In real life, it does not exist as a net signal.

    If there is a normal temperature gradient, the thermopile signal is negative so you still measure Prevost Exchange Energy, but it is smaller by the net upward flux.

    So the DWLR exists when you shield it from the UWLR, but it can do no thermodynamic work. However, the placement of the detector is very important. Climate science has well and truly cocked up basic heat transfer.

  46. Brian H says:

    Hans;
    After reading your analysis/comment, a situation/gedanken-experiment occurred to me which I can’t resolve.
    Two isolated/insulated blocks of atmosphere at 1 bar with the same heat energy content, separated only by 2 very thin IR-transparent (Mylar(?)) sheets with a vacuum gap between them. One has 50% Relative Humidity, the other 0%. Both have 0.04% CO2. Both have the same energy content. The high-RH will be at a lower temperature, of course, say 20°C for arbitrary convenience.

    What is the IR exchange between the two? Will the temperatures equalize? (No conductive transfer because of the vacuum gap.)

  47. sergeiMK says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
    An instrumental note.
    A pyrgeometer does not measure DWLR. It measures the downward IR minus the upward IR from the black body reference source via a thermistor between the two plates and a calibration curve, to which net flux is added the theoretical IR flux from the black body reference.
    ========
    Partially wrong – wiki:

    A pyrgeometer consists of the following major components:
    A thermopile sensor which is sensitive to radiation in a broad range from 200 nm to 100 µm
    A silicon dome or window with a solar blind filter coating. It has a transmittance between 4.5 µm and 50 µm that eliminates solar shortwave radiation.
    A temperature sensor to measure the body temperature of the instrument.
    A sun shield to minimize heating of the instrument due to solar radiation.

    The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

    To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:
    ——–

    There is no internal BB (other than the thermopile. just a temperature measurement
    The pyrg measures the difference between the thermopile’s emission and the radiation received by the thermopile. if these were used in a vacuum with no IR they would measure negative IR until the pygr cooled to 0K.

    The 2 documents reference in my previous post were doing a side by side calibration of a number of instruments. One was a sky scanning radiometer:

    “The new absolute sky-scanning radiometer (ASR) allows absolute measurements of atmospheric long-wave radiation and is suggested as a future reference standard for pyrgeometer field calibration. The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards. The pyroelectric detector has no window to prevent thermal and spectral transmission effects. Scanning the sky with a narrow viewing angle and integrating with the Gaussian quadrature, rather than taking hemispherical measurements, prevent errors related to the cosine effect.”

    The docs comparison of LWIR from the sky agree within a percent or two. It should be noted that the ASR measures all radiation in its viewing field and so is not comparable during daylight when solar radiation will be measured

    The documents truly record the NET LW radiation coming from above the horizontal.

    A note on thermopiles.

    These are similar to a thermocouple thermometer
    In a thermocouple thermometer there is a “cold” junction (inside the thermometer) and a junction of 2 different metals – the sensing “hot” junction.
    The temperature difference between the hot an cold junctions generates a voltage which is converted to temperature difference between the hot and cold junctions.
    To know the absolute temperature the cold junction is measured using a semiconductor temperature sensor

    The common K-type TC (chromel-alumel) will measure temperatures between -200C and 1350C

    The thermopile is a closely spaced array of thermocouples connected in series to give a greater sensitivity or can be individually addressed to give an image (see FLIR cameras)

    The thermopile temperature is measured and consequently the output voltage can be used to determine its temperature. If the thermopile is treated to look like a BB then the energy balance of radiation, the sensor temperature, and thermal mass (will affect response time) will determine the temperature.

  48. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: March 17, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Tallbloke,
    I see that the earth energy budget cartoons by NASA and T&K have been discussed quite extensivly on your blog.
    The value of these diagrams are quite limited even if the NASA diagram would be a very good approximation of AVERAGE net energy flows on earth. Here is why.

    Real energy conditions in earth´s atmosphere vary very much in different regions. It is beyond doubt that the atmosphere in Karesuando (head figure) recieves all its energy (about 100%) from air coming from southern latitudes. Direct solar irradiation is zero. Obviously a percentage of zero is zero (see the NASA diagram) so information from that diagram is not applicable in Karesuando. The identification of the physical processes that contribute to a) transfer thermal energy from equatorial areas to Karesuando and b) transport it vertically downwards to the surface when at hand in the Karesuando area is poorly treated in litterature. To really investigate this situation might give a number of answers to the problem that is hunting the topic of “Back R¤adiation” and its possible quantitative number in the real Karesuando atmosphere.

    The outgoing longwave IR radiation (OLR) from Arctic areas during wintertime is about 140 W/m^2 and it might be a good guess that the average OLR from Karesuando in January is about 160 W/m^2.

    Who can show that “Greenhouse gases” can affect and cause the variations in surface temperature that have been observed in Karesuando in January and how the SB law can be applied? As you can see in the head the temperature swings are about 20-30 centigrade back and forth during one months.

    There are for sure physical processes that cause these swings. It has little to do with the occurance of carbon dioxide (which is approximately constant all around the world and water vapour which is low at Karesuando).
    Cloud cover seems to be a very potent variable affecting the Januari temperature in Kareusando but IR transmission and its quantity is the most interesting topic. It has to be a major player, too, but how? To Roger I want to mention that the concept “downwelling” for downward energy convection is a reality in Karesuando (and in polar regions and in any high pressure situation). In this case approximate quantitative numbers of energy flows beyond simplicic averages are of interest

  49. Hans says:

    Brian H says: March 18, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Brian,
    To me it seems that your system is not fully specified. Are your two layers parts of the atmosphere? Are the layers inclosed in a constant volume? You are saying that both have the same heat content and the same energy content. In the atmosphere gravity is involved adding potential energy. Come back with a careful specification and I might be able to answer. It seems favourable to me if you enclose equal amounts of mass in each layer.

  50. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hans: when there is a temperature inversion, there will be net ‘downwelling radiation’.

  51. Hans says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 18, 2012 at 10:57 am An instrumental note.

    “A pyrgeometer does not measure DWLR. It measures the downward IR minus the upward IR from the black body reference source via a thermistor between the two plates and a calibration curve, to which net flux is added the theoretical IR flux from the black body reference.”

    Thanks Mydog…
    Years ago I decided that there had to be something wrong with the calibrations of pyrgometers but I was not informed enough about their function and still I am not. After some late interest in how to measure IR irradiance (W/m^2) I decided to only believe in bolometers where photon energy actually cause a temperature increase in the sensors. My simple opinion is that any photon carry energy and that energy has to show up at absorbtion. To me that seemed best when measuring irradiance at close to ambient temperature as is the case in the lower troposphere.

    Quite an evolution of bolometers seems to have taken place lately.
    See: http://www.icu-eu.com/attachments/File/Bolometer_Review_SPIE_Published.pdf

  52. Hans says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 18, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    “Hans: when there is a temperature inversion, there will be net ‘downwelling radiation’.”

    Yes, but mostly convectional downwelling of energy is a faster process than “IR downwelling radiation”. Secondly, there is semantics involved. An inversion is only an inversion when the energy of air is higher than given by the DALR. An inversion does not neccearily need to be at constant temprature or increasing temperature as function of altitude.

    In a similar manner ascending convectional upwelling energy (sunlit surface) is also a much faster process than upward IR radiation tranfer of energy in most real daily situations.

    Observational evidence shows that the surface of earth is cooling (fast) between day and night when there are no clouds and no solar irradiation. Surface IR upwards beats any IR downwards in most real atmospheric situations when the sky is clear. As I have claimed earlier: The total energy content per mass unit (kg) in the atmosphere is ALWAYS at a minimum at the surface in an air column.

  53. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hans: pyrgeometers.

    Having looked at a few papers, i am astonished that a whole sub-science has built up on a misconception of what ‘back radiation’ means. When there is no temperature gradient and the instruments are above the IR absorption distance above the ground, they measure the S-B radiative flux for the local emissivity of the atmosphere. You can get this from Hottell charts for a given concentration of GHGs. H2O will dominate in most regions, but not yours or in a desert!

    However, what has intrigued me is what happens when the instrument is within the absorption distance of IR from a surface. In one paper I saw a bank of instruments mounted above a roof on a table. In that case, the reference temperature is the part the table, part the air, in turn a function of the absorptivity of the table and the emissivity of the roof.

    What they will measure will be different than if they are mounted away from a building because the radiative equilibrium will be different.

  54. Stephen Wilde says:

    Isn’t this discussion getting pretty close to my earlier contentions ?

    “It is a mistake to then regard the atmosphere as radiating down to the surface because the atmosphere always radiates upward. Instead we should regard the atmosphere as being heated by energy scattering from the surface upward such that it is the temperature of the atmosphere just at or above the surface that passes energy back to the ground and not the sky as proposed by AGW theory.

    Everything makes much more sense on that basis.”

    from here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/stephen-wilde-the-myth-of-backradiation/

  55. sergeiMK says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    Hans: pyrgeometers.

    However, what has intrigued me is what happens when the instrument is within the absorption distance of IR from a surface. In one paper I saw a bank of instruments mounted above a roof on a table. In that case, the reference temperature is the part the table, part the air, in turn a function of the absorptivity of the table and the emissivity of the roof.
    What they will measure will be different than if they are mounted away from a building because the radiative equilibrium will be different.

    ==========

    To me this sounds as if you agree that back radiation is real. The roof emits upwards the GHGs emit some of the roof radiation downwards. \i.e. exactly what happens in GHG theory.

    The radiation measured above the arctic circle is mainly from GHGs other than H2O since the air will contain little water vapour at -15C to -40C.
    The measurements taken showed substantially the same night and day down ward radiation.

    To be considered is the fact the the docs I referenced were testing the calibration of a number of different systems both Pyrgeometers and an absolute sky-scanning radiometer (ASR)- this allows absolute measurements of atmospheric long-wave radiation and is suggested as a future reference standard for pyrgeometer field calibration.

    Hans says: March 18, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    In a similar manner ascending convectional upwelling energy (sunlit surface) is also a much faster process than upward IR radiation tranfer of energy in most real daily situations.

    =================

    Can you give the physics behind this please. Photons travel at the speed of light hit a co2 molecule and in a few nanosecond get spat out. This must be a faster process than convection

    If one assumed that the convected air traveled at 100mph then the photons would be travelling 6*10^6 faster

  56. Ned Nikolov says:

    The IR back radiation is real and has been measured countless times. Its global average annual value is about 343 W m-2. The question is not whether it exists, but whether it contributes anything to global surface temperature.

    On average, the surface emits some 397 W m-2 upwards. Hence, the net IR flux (downward-upward) is about -54 W m-2. In other words, on average, the surface cools through IR radiation. Our analysis of climate models and the physical nature of the GH effect also suggests that back radiation is a cooling mechanism to the atmosphere. It’s a product of atmospheric temperature, not a cause for it! On a global scale, the warming effect of back radiation is completely neutralized (offset) at the surface by the convective cooling. This is how the internal kinetic energy of the climate system is being conserved … Climate models do not simulate the neutralizing effect of convection, because they decouple radiative transfer from convective heat exchange when solving for the vertical temperature profile. This artificial decoupling is the reason for the predicted warming with increasing atmospheric emissivity (due to rising CO2 concentration) … So, the CO2-induced warming is a pure model artifact!

    Another interesting fact is that the observed 343 W m-2 mean global downward IR flux is some 44% higher that the amount of TOTAL solar radiation absorbed by the entire Earth-atmosphere system, i.e. 239 W m-2. This raises the question: where is the extra thermal flux of 104 W m-2 coming from? It cannot be due to stored solar energy in the atmosphere, because the latter has a negligible heat storage capacity… Explain this ‘back’ radiation with the measured shortwave absorption as attempted by IPCC and the current GH theory immediately collides with the First law of thermodynamics (since there is not enough solar energy to account the observed kinetic energy in the lower troposphere)… The situation gets to an extreme on Venus, where the back radiation flux is some 80 times larger that the total absorbed solar flux!

    It is the atmospheric pressure and its thermal enhancement that delivers this ‘extra’ energy to the lower atmosphere. The back radiation is a manifestation of atmospheric temperature, which is linearly related to that ‘extra’ energy…

  57. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    sergeMK and Ned Nikolov:

    Radiation 101 says that two bodies in line of sight emit radiation according to S-B for their emissivity and view factor. When they are equal in temperature, they still emit that radiation but it is not absorbed. Why?

    It’s because an equal number of the activated density of states [which can radiate] passes energy to kinetic energy as is transmitted from kinetic energy to the activated density of states, so no net heat transfer

    Reduce the temperature of one body and fewer surface states receive energy from the interior so more of those states are available to be filled by radiant energy from the hotter body. That sets up the heat transfer.

    The difference between the first and second cases is that ‘back radiation’ as measured by blocking the radiation in the other direction, has decreased. That ‘back radiation’ is a measure of temperature and emissivity. ‘Back radiation’ from the cooler to the hotter body cannot do thermodynamic work.

    A pyrgeometer pointing to the cooler emitter measures in effect temperature convolved with emissivity. For gases, emissivity is set by optical depth. [I suspect climate science’s radiation transfer models double count energies, hence the ‘back radiation’ mistake.]

    The physicists think of it is photons being ‘reflected’ from filled activated states. Also, because of the upper energy cut-off effect, there are high energy states at the hotter body which cannot be filled by photons from the cooler body.

    The Trenberth-Kiehl claim that the 324 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ can be part of the 390 W/m^2 emitted from the earth’s surface is totally false. The real heat transfer is the difference and assuming 40 W/m^2 of the 66 W/m^2 difference escapes through the atmospheric window, only 26 W/m^2 can be absorbed by the atmosphere as radiant energy.. To this you add the 67 W/m^2 directly absorbed before it reaches the surface.

    So, they overclaim the net radiation emitted by the ground absorbed in the atmosphere by a factor of 13.5! At steady state, of the 168 W/m^2 that reaches the surface, only a small proportion [39%] is actually radiated away. Look at any practical textbook on combined convective and radiative heat transport lke McAdam for the engineering data to prove it. To get net radiant heat transfer to be greater than convection in a steel plant where the oxidised metal has the same emissivity as sand, needs ~120°C. For aluminium it’s ~300°C.

    And don’t tell me that climate scientists know better because their models have failed and the models used to set up process plants work! ‘Back radiation’ is only real when you isolate it from its exactly offsetting counterpart we call Prevost exchange energy, Law of 1791 which appears to have been forgotten by climate science.

    If anyone wants to dispute my figures, consider the origin of Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. What is it that controls effective emissivity when the two bodies have nearly equal temperatures? If ‘back radiation’ added to the energy emitted, then the S-B constant becomes doubled when you have equal temperatures. Is the S-B constant a variable? Go and prove it if you damn well dare and chuck out far more peer reviewed science than oxymoronic ‘climate science’ has under its belt!

    [On a personal note, I find climate and environmental science people incredibly arrogant because they lack basic physics yet get funded for being ignorant. Spencer and Curry are coming round after a couple of years intensive battering by people who do know physics, including real S-B calculations.]

  58. Hans says:

    sergeiMK says: March 19, 2012 at 2:26 am

    ” In a similar manner ascending convectional upwelling energy (sunlit surface) is also a much faster process than upward IR radiation tranfer of energy in most real daily situations.” and
    “Can you give the physics behind this please. Photons travel at the speed of light hit a co2 molecule and in a few nanosecond get spat out. This must be a faster process than convection.”

    I am talking about the speed of energy transfer in a vertical column of air. Few photons don´t move a lot of energy and the +300 W/m^2 radiation transfer does not exist in any real physical situation.
    You might understand why by reading the information below.

    The bulk of solar energy reaching the surface of earth gets absorbed. That energy is sooner or later leaving the solid matter that aborbed the energy. The warmer surface heat the air close to the surface. The warm air rises until it reaches the inversion level that 8mostly) has developed during the former night night. A DALR develops. In northern Australia in August (Koorin Expedition data) this energy reaches up to a level around 2500 m asl around 3 PM. Convective heat transfer dominates the upward heat tansport during day time. The maximum solar irradience hitting the ground around noon is +800 W/m^2. IR radiation from ground level is a smaller part of the energy leaving it. There are no clouds.
    Any bird knows about this rising air which is faster over black parking lots and over newly plowed fields than other surroundings due to differtial heating of the ground surfaces.

    During night time the surface cools relatively fast because of IR radiation emitted from the ground which cools the atmosphere closest to the ground. This starts a wind system which increases the cooling of the lowest atmosphere (up to 400-500 m). The cooling of the lowest layer of the atmosphere (10-15 C during the Koorin expedition) makes that part shrink. The upper part of the troposphere descend because of that. The downward motion makes the descending air heat adiabatically. This is convective heat transfer downwards. All this can be checked in detail by reading data from the Koorin expedition.

    Another example of very fast downwelling adiabatic heating occur around Antarcitca. The windiest area in the world is found there due to cold air that is falling downwards and is heated. In fact adiabatic heating by downward moving air is added to solar heating in any high pressure situation when the sun is shining thus adding to the surface temperature. This is far more responsidble for any added surface temperature than any greenhosue gases.

    The daily temeprature increase of the lowest troposphere during the Koorin expedition was about 10-15 C in 4 hours. As a comparison consider the average rate of cooling produced by the IR radiation.
    Hopefully you agree that the mass of the atmosphere is around 10300 kg/m^2.
    The average rate of IR radiation into space is 240 W/m^2 accoring to the (old) NASA diagram.

    The average cooling of the bulk atmosphere per 24 hour period due to IR radiation into space is
    10300x1000x1/24/3600/240 = 0.50 C. Compare this with 10-15 c in 4 hours.

    This simple calculation proves that convective haet transfer in the lower troposphere is a much faster way of transporting energy within the lower atmosphere than IR radiation.

    The reasoning above explains why the daily amplitude swings are so great especially in desert regions and when there are no clouds around as it is during periods in Karesuando. Se the data in the head about Karesuando data during different seasons and explain to me how these observed surface temperature variations can be produced by “greenhouse gases” in a detailed way.

  59. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Climate science’s assessment of practical heat transfer is the belief that at 1 atmosphere, the Earth’s surface is forced to radiate at 390 W/m^2, the flux for a black body at 15°C in a vacuum.

    161 [LW] + 333 [‘back radiation’] = 494

    494 – 396 [‘surface radiation’] = 17 [thermals] + 80 [evapo-transpiration] + 0.9 [‘net absorbed’]

    [2009 Trenberth and Keihl diagram]

    However, any process engineer knows that at equilibrium, the sum of the heat fluxes from conduction, convection and radiation equals the heat input,

    161 [LW] – 0.9 [‘net absorbed’] = 17 [thermals] + 80 [evapo-transpiration] + 63 [net IR emission]

    Climate science’s case is wrong:there is no requirement that IR emission in an atmosphere is set by the S-B equation in a vacuum for that temperature. The real IR emission will depend on convection: you see this in the Urban heat island effect where reduced convection raises temperature to the point where increased radiation compensates for reduced convection.

  60. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    PS the proof that the back radiation argument is false is that the increased UHI effect would, by increasing ‘back radiation’ have caused substantial global warming. But to admit that would be to admit that there is a competitor to GHG-AGW!

  61. kuhnkat says:

    sergeiMK,

    yes, photons travel at the speed of light. Of course, part of them are traveling the wrong direction. Tends to slow down that average upward flux.

  62. sergeiMK says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    PS the proof that the back radiation argument is false is that the increased UHI effect would, by increasing ‘back radiation’ have caused substantial global warming. But to admit that would be to admit that there is a competitor to GHG-AGW!
    ====
    I take it you ARE joking?
    wiki
    The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.

  63. sergeiMK says:

    kuhnkat says March 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    yes, photons travel at the speed of light. Of course, part of them are traveling the wrong direction. Tends to slow down that average upward flux.
    =========
    Yes thats the “back radiation” that all here seem to say does not exist!

  64. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    SergeMK: imagine you put up a windbreak on the beach. Assuming that the sand temperature rises from 25°C to 40°C, that 20% of the extra IR [emissivity = 0.85] is absorbed by GHGs and half that returned as back radiation, and it’s 5.13 times the IPCC median AGW.

    On this basis we need to cut down all the forests and knock down all the builsings to stop dangerous global warming!

  65. sergeiMK says:

    Mydogsgotnonose
    “Prevost Exchange Energy Field, a standing wave”

    contains all words I understand but just not in an order that means anything to me.!
    Prevost’s Law
    The Astrophysical Journal, May 1910, page 285

    This seems to show that an excange of photons continues no matter what the temperatures of 2 bodies. A body at 100K still absorbs radiation from a body at 10K.

    Could you please explain where a standing wave comes into this?

  66. kuhnkat says:

    sergeiMK,

    “that is the backradiation that most here seem to think doesn’t exist.”

    Ahh another alarmist with reading comprehension issues. Just trying to help you out, but, shoulda know better!! HEHEHEHEHEHEHE

  67. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    sergeMK: I have corrected my comment by saying that it’s like a standing wave but not coherent. Some physicists call it ‘photon energy’ imagining that radiation which impacts an already filled activated site is backscattered so cannot be converted to heat energy.

    For the case of equal temperatures, two bodies emit according to S-B but by definition, there is no heating. Climate science’s imaginary ‘back radiation’ would have to be absorbed under such conditions and re-emitted.

    So this pseudo-science is claiming that the S-B constant is a variable, ranging from twice the the level when the bodies are at equal temperature.to the real level when you have an isolated body in a vacuum.

    This is junk science.

  68. Hans says:

    About Prevost

    Certainly science has moved forward slightly since the days of Prevost. I find the lecture proposed by mydog….worth reading by thos who belive in the existence of +300 W/m^2 imaginary flows of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere besides solar irradiation.
    See http://www.freestudy.co.uk/heat%20transfer/convrad.pdf
    I am a litttle disapponted that few of the comments concerns the situation that is shown in the head at Karesuando and especially in january. I consider the measurents presented as showing reality. How is any hypotheical back radiation from the atmosphere working in Karesuando? It seems quite clear that clouds have the potential to stop radiation losses from the surface. Any comment of what this tread is supposed to deal with?

    The introduction of Prevost is of historical interest but here it seems to introduce more confusion. Personally I had never heard of him and checked him up. I presume the “Prevost law” is not considered a law any more.

    Swiss physicist (1751–1839)

    Born in Geneva, Switzerland, Prévost was professor of physics at Berlin and then at the university in his native city. In 1792 he published his Sur l’equilibre du feu (On the Equilibrium of Heat), which did much to clarify the nature of heat.

    If, as was widely believed at the time, heat was a fluid, called caloric, which flowed from hot bodies to colder ones, then it was reasonable to suppose that cold was also a fluid, ‘frigoric’, which flowed from cold bodies to warmer ones. In favor of the existence of frigoric was a body of experimental work that dated back to the 17th century. Thus it was known that if a piece of ice was placed near a thermometer in a room of constant temperature then the temperature of the thermometer would fall. More impressively, if two concave mirrors are arranged so that they face each other and a piece of ice is placed at one focus and a thermometer at the other, then the indicated temperature will fall. Experiments like this readily lent themselves to the interpretation that the fluid frigoric can be emitted and reflected.

    Prévost argued in 1791 that there is but a single fluid involved. Snow melting in the hand was a case of heat flowing from the hand to the snow rather than conversely. He introduced the idea of dynamic equilibrium in which all bodies are radiating and absorbing heat. When one body is colder than another it absorbs more than it radiates. Its temperature will rise until it is in equilibrium with its surroundings. At this point, it does not stop radiating heat but absorbs just as much as it loses to remain in equilibrium. The idea is known as the Prévost theory of exchanges.

    Although Prévost was a supporter of the caloric theory of heat, his views influenced a later generation of physicists who introduced the kinetic theory of heat on a quantitative basis toward the end of the 19th century.

  69. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hans; proper physicists are quite happy with Prevost because his claim that at equilibrium equal energy flowed both ways between two bodies at the same temperature is absolutely correct in the non-quantum World.

    The view by the climate scientists that this energy can do thermodynamic work [the physicists think that photons impacting a filled radiative state are back scattered instead of being absorbed] would if true mean that each of those bodies in temperature equilibrium would have to send out twice the energy emitted according to S-B. meaning the S-B constant would be double its accepted value [forget about what happens next!] for equal temperatures, falling to one times its accepted value for an isolated body in a vacuum.

    This is why I consider Prevost Exchange as a regulator of IR energy transmission, effectively modulating effective emissivity and absorptivity as a function of temperature difference.

    Ask a physicist to look at this and they’ll come back with gobbledygook because unlike me, a materials specialist, they haven’t a clear idea of the mechanisms.

  70. Hans says:

    Ned Nikolov says: March 19, 2012 at 3:30 am

    My comments are in paranthesis in your text for clarity

    The IR back radiation is real and has been measured countless times. Its global average annual value is about 343 W m-2. The question is not whether it exists, but whether it contributes anything to global surface temperature.
    (The question really is if it does exist at the level of +300 W/m^2. It is not physically possible according to my education as an MSc with theoretical and pplied electronics as the major subject/HJ)

    So, the CO2-induced warming is a pure model artifact!
    (agree completely/HJ)

    Another interesting fact is that the observed 343 W m-2 mean global downward IR flux….
    (I will soon show you observed radiation flux data that are accurately measured before the +300 W/m^2 back radiation was invented from the best investigation about atmospheric energy fluxes ever made, The Koorin Expedition/HJ)

    The situation gets to an extreme on Venus, where the back radiation flux is some 80 times larger that the total absorbed solar flux!
    (No it is not. I have shown that the reason for the high temperature on the Venusian surface is decided by the distribution of energy in the atmosphere and the second law of thermodynamics in my E&E paper 2003 and in the thread at Tallbloke. There is absolutely no need for any 80 times larger back radiation in the Venusian atmosphere/HJ)

    It is the atmospheric pressure and its thermal enhancement that delivers this ‘extra’ energy to the lower atmosphere. The back radiation is a manifestation of atmospheric temperature, which is linearly related to that ‘extra’ energy…
    (The “extra” energy you are talking about is just stored energy in the atmosphere. It is not cosntantly delivered. It is a static phenomenon. There is no need for a new world “thermal enhancement” since the word “greenhouse effect GE” although missleading is well known. There is a need to define GE in the way NASA has done and also Phil Jones. GE on earth is about 33 C and on Venus +450. A GE will always develope regardless of the composition of any atmosphere/HJ)

    (Ned, you are introducing lots of confusion backing up pseudo physics that cannot be found or verified by processes in nature when claiming that IR% back radiation from a clear atmosphere does exist in any substantial amount in our atmosphere and in the venusian atmosphere/HJ)

  71. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Hans: ‘back radiation’ is a measure of temperature and emissivity, nothing more, nothing less.

    It can do no thermodynamic work.

  72. Hans says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says: March 20, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Hans: ‘back radiation’ is a measure of temperature and emissivity, nothing more, nothing less.
    It can do no thermodynamic work.

    Certainly “IR back radiation” is meant to be electromagnetic radiation. Look at the K&T diagram. IR back radiation at certain levels does exist in nature as the Karesuando data set strongly indicates but the IR back radiation at the levels in the K&T diagram is fictious. The simple way to argue is: Any electromagnetic radiation when absorbed releases energy according to the identity valid for a photon E = h f. If it is absent there is no electromagnetic radiation at hand. My hands and face would easily feel any electromagnetic radiation in the IR range at a level of +300 W/m^2.

    This is valid for sunlight, IR radiation, microwave radiation etc. Even if you were absolutely right in your statement above the concept of IR back radiation (at +300 W/m^2) has to be avoided since it still would create a lot of confusion, especially since there exist IR back radiation at a lower intensity from both clouds and also the atmosphere (water vapour especially).

  73. tallbloke says:

    Mydog: The co2 greenhouse theorists (or at least some of them, e.g. Ray Pierrehumbug) seem to have given up on backradiation heating anything, and ‘moved on’ to the idea that the effect of extra co2 is to raise the ‘effective height of emission’ to space. Their conjecture is that since this therefore takes place form a colder point in the atmosphere, the surface temperature must rise to compensate, to maintain the overall energy balance. What they don’t seem to have realised (or at least acknowledged) is that a warmer atmosphere is an expanded atmosphere, which will carry warmth higher with it. So I suspect that any ‘raising of the effective height of emission’ will have very little or no effect.

  74. tallbloke says:

    Hans: I thiink Mydog is talking about the lack of work done by that quantity in the flux which is balanced between downwelling and upwelling radiation. His ‘Prevost’ energy.

    I don’t think he would have any problem with an excess of downwelling caused by cloud to have a real thermodynamic effect in the right meteorological circumstances.

    (correct me if I’m wrong please Mydog).

  75. Stephen Wilde says:

    The expansion of the lower atmosphere so as to raise the effective radiating height would reduce molecular density at the surface thus weakening the ATE at the surface thereby offsetting the extra warmth held in the air.

    I think that must be the mechanism whereby the observed pressure/temperature relationships are achieved.

    The lapse rate from surface to effective radiating height would change and so the AGW proponents would be wrong in assuming that a raised effective radiating height would necessarily involve a higher surface temperature.

    More energy held by warmer air, yes but a warmer surface, no.

    As I’ve said before it is simply a redistribution of the available energy and not an increase in system equilibrium temperature or energy content.

    They try to apply the S-B Law within the atmosphere but they shouldn’t. They should apply the Ideal Gas Law instead.

  76. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html

    Back radiation can do no work: it is a a fiction derived from the pyrgeometer and the abuse of the s-B law.

    In my view it measures temperature convolved with emissivity.

  77. Hans says:

    As far as can understand the expression “observed back radiation” means measured IR electromagnetic radiation at levels of +300 W/m^2. Here is a source showing that there is little scintific basis for such claims. The data set is from the Koorin expedition 1974 at Daly Waters, Australia.
    much real data was collected every hour during 30 days. Just to restrict the information to radiation data the following variables were measured. Global radiation (IR + light), Net radiation (IR + light), ground flux soil (at 25 mm depth), ground flux (probably at 100 mm depth). Here I will just recapulate global and net flux and the differenc between them for each hour during day 10. Similar values are found all the other days with little difference. All numbers in W/m^2.

    Hour Global_flux Net_flux Difference
    0 -8 -74 -66
    1 -10 -68 -58
    2 -8 -68 -58
    3 -7 -63 -56
    4 -5 -60 -55
    5 -5 -59 -54
    6 -7 -61 -54
    7 55 3 -52
    8 255 174 -81
    9 470 331 -139
    10 643 449 -194
    11 747 520 -227
    12 790 532 -258
    13 771 503 -268
    14 689 430 -259
    15 541 317 -224
    16 347 167 -180
    17 139 2 -137
    18 1 -80 -81
    19 -6 -77 -71
    20 -7 -74 -67
    21 -7 -72 -65
    22 -8 -74 -66
    23 -6 -73 -67
    Totals 5.3 2.4 -2.9 kWh

    To put it shortly Solar energy transmitted to the surface is 5.30 kWh per 24 hour
    IR radiated from the surface is 2.90 kWh
    Absorbed energy remowed by convection + 2.40 kWh
    latent heat
    The 2.9 kWh contain both refleced sun light and IR emitted
    from the surface. All this is measured without knowledge of
    “IR back radiation.” In fact the global EM measurement shows
    about zero IR back radiation during night time. Can the
    instruments be poorly calibrated?

    Source:
    Department of Science and the Environment
    Bureau of Meteorology,
    Australian Government Publishing Service, 1979

    Hans Jelbring

    PS: Sensible heat and latent heat fluxes were also measured.
    The heat balance makes much sense. Absorbed solar heat is
    removed by both IR radiation, sensible heat and latent heat
    fluxes. Each quantity is well registered on an hourly bassis.

    Tell me if you want
    further information about the best and most complete
    atmospheric measurements ever performed 0-3000 m asl.

  78. Hans says:

    Please, I would like to get the data in nice columns.

    [In user comments! Sheesh, it’s hard as admin. Hand code subset of HTML taking CSS into account. –Tim]

  79. Stephen Wilde says:

    I think there is a problem here as regards the definition of ‘back radiation’ and I alluded to that definitional problem in my earlier guest post.

    AGW proponents use the term back radiation to describe the total downward flux of radiation emitted by GHG molecules distributed throughout the atmospheric column. I would add that such a flux also comes from non GHGs to a small degree and from particulates in the air including cloud droplets.

    I do not accept that such a downward flux has any effect on surface temperature by virtue of the pressure effects described by N & Z and others but it does exist and does have an effect on the energy content and temperature of the air. Claes Johnson, Doug and others are correct to point out that there is no effect on surface temperature but they are wrong to suggest that there is no downward flux at all or that there would be any breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics or that there is no greenhouse effect at all.

    There is a greenhouse effect from pressure (via density) and part of that effect is derived from a dynamic radiative energy exchange between the surface and air molecules in contact with or immediately above the surface. That is back radiation but it is not what either AGW proponents nor Claes Johnson et al mean by the term.

    So there is no back radiation from the sky as per the current general usage but there is back radiation of a sort right at the surface.

    ATE sets the temperature of both surface and air (in contact with or very close to the surface). The temperature of the atmospheric column as a whole or any point within it is pretty much irrelevant because all it achieves is to expand the volume of the atmosphere which reduces molecular density at the surface so as to weaken the ATE at the surface and thereby negate its own effect on surface temperature and on equilibrium energy content for the system as a whole.

  80. Hans says:

    Stephen Wilde says: March 20, 2012 at 9:25 am

    “They try to apply the S-B Law within the atmosphere but they shouldn’t. They should apply the Ideal Gas Law instead.”

    I agree to your first sentence and would like to add to the second one. The gas law argument is needed but not enough. The idal gas law is valid in most physical situations in the troposphere, tropopaus and stratospheere. The equalization of equal amount of total energy per mass unit (the action of the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied to energy as it should be) is the reason why the dry adiabatic lapse rate develops and that is only approxiamtely valid up to the tropopause. Convenctive heat transfer rules (dominates) the energy distribution in the troposphere but not higher up.

  81. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hans said:

    “Convective heat transfer rules (dominates) the energy distribution in the troposphere but not higher up.”

    Yes, I agree that the different layers in the atmosphere behave differently as a result of their differing compositions.

    However, taking the atmosphere as a whole from surface to space it must on average, over time, obey the Ideal Gas Law otherwise no atmosphere could be sustained.

  82. wayne says:

    Hans: “Please, I would like to get the data in nice columns”

    Like this? Hans, you must use a text editor and most important… no tabs, spaces only, and with a MONOspace font as CourierNew or LucidaConsole! Then just place a <pre> and </pre> around that pre-formatted text table.

    Hour  Global flux Net flux Difference (Watts/sq. meter)
    ----  ----------- -------- ----------
    0000       -8        -74       -66
    0100      -10        -68       -58
    0200       -8        -68       -58
    0300       -7        -63       -56
    0400       -5        -60       -55
    0500       -5        -59       -54
    0600       -7        -61       -54
    0700       55          3       -52
    0800      255        174       -81
    0900      470        331      -139
    1000      643        449      -194
    1100      747        520      -227
    1200      790        532      -258
    1300      771        503      -268
    1400      689        430      -259
    1500      541        317      -224
    1600      347        167      -180
    1700      139          2      -137
    1800        1        -80       -81
    1900       -6        -77       -71
    2000       -7        -74       -67
    2100       -7        -72       -65
    2200       -8        -74       -66
    2300       -6        -73       -67
            -----      -----    ------
             5.30       2.40     -2.90  (kWh totals)
    
  83. tallbloke says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says:
    March 20, 2012 at 9:53 am

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html

    Back radiation can do no work: it is a a fiction derived from the pyrgeometer and the abuse of the s-B law.

    In my view it measures temperature convolved with emissivity.

    Thanks but that doesn’t get me any further forward.

  84. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: March 20, 2012 at 9:01 am

    “Their conjecture is that since this therefore takes place form a colder point in the atmosphere, the surface temperature must rise to compensate, to maintain the overall energy balance.”

    There exist a fair model showing Outgoing Long Wave (OLW) as a function region on earth. Knowing the average surface temperature of such a region it is possible to calculate a regional Greenhouse Effect (GE). Doing so it can be shown to vary from almost zero (South Pole) to about 55 C (Amazonas). Such calculations would put the topic you rise in a proper perspective. It can also decide the impact of different levels of moisture, surface altitude etc on the regional GE. The calculated regional variations cannot depend on carbon dioxide since it is constan at a fixed time.

  85. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: March 20, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Hans: I think Mydog is talking about the lack of work done by that quantity in the flux which is balanced between downwelling and upwelling radiation. His ‘Prevost’ energy.

    I know that but I think it is vital to refuse to accept that what is commonly referred to “IR back radiation” is not electromagnetic radiation in plain language. I fully agree with mydog that this type of “IR back radiation” cannot do any work. Fantasies mostly don´t produce work by itsself but it can trigg a lot of energy in peoples minds and other types of work such as inadequate articles etc.

  86. wayne says:

    “Tell me if you want
    further information about the best and most complete
    atmospheric measurements ever performed 0-3000 m asl.”

    Absolutely Hans, is there a place on the web where this data is available or have Rog email it to me? I mean, you have already let the cat out of the bag.

    Please give me a copy, but here’s something to ponder… are you sure this real data should be made visible and available? I mean real data by real scientists from real observations that not only does “back radiation” not exist in the absence of the sunlight, but, the pyrgeometers at night actually record negative “back-radiation”, a kind of “front-radiation” from outer space for those with vivid imaginations. That’s pure heresy according to the Global AGW Industries (Inc.)! If this ever got out to the public at large it would shutdown that AGW industry faster than a frog grokin’ a fly! Ribbit! And what would all of these good people on these great climate blogs going to argued about with no possible “man-made global warming” by “back-radiation”? Huh? Huh? :roll: ;-) /sarc off, maybe

    Back to normalcy. Hope that explanation of how tow format a table in a blog helped but my eyes now see two ll’s as one. That should have read… <pre> –the pre-formatted table text– </pre> . Like that.

    If you can get me a copy that is one of the missing pieces of data as I create a global 3d latitude band energy budget. The other missing piece of data is the mean temperatures per each latitude band. By 5 or 10° would be great but every 18° would do. I’ve searched the web for hours and can find no reference to such data. Amazing!

    [Reply] Fixed your instructions to Hans

  87. tallbloke says:

    Hans, yes. But your empirical observations show that temperatures rises under still, cloudy skies. So what is happening? Does the net 60W/m^2 upward flux become a downward flux due to the extra concentration of water vapour in clouds?

  88. Hans says:

    Wayne, you seem to understand the importance of this data set. I can scan day 10 (12 pages) and send it to Tallbloke so you can see the full information of the data. Then he might publish it too. Some more information below. The Clark and Brook book “The Koorin expedition” is 70 pages text and 275 pages data. I have communicted with a member of the Koorin expedition (5 years ago) but he did not want to discuss it. He is now an expert warmist. I have the impression that this information has been suppressed by CSIRO. I have not read the articles by Garrat et al but it is very odd that this extensive data set only seem to have been analysed by one? institution and by me. I have lost all information in computers but have a number of images left somewhere.

    KOORIN
    In 1967, the Australian Wangara expedition to Hay, New South Wales, resulted in a boundary layer data set, for a smooth, flat surface, that has been widely used and cited in the literature. Australian researchers of the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology launched an even more comprehensive study for 29 days in July and August 1974. The intent was to conduct a similar study for a region of greater roughness and change in the Coriolis effect. The site selected was Daly Waters, Northern Territory, a site approximately 18 degrees of latitude northward of the Hay site. The site is semiarid woodland and savannah with grass. Observations were collected at two micrometeorological and one surface-upper air site. The micro-meteorological sites (M1 and M2) were each flat and homogeneous on the macro-scale, but represented clearly different roughness regimes. The M1 site was sparsely covered by 5-10-m- high trees and with a sparse under- storey of grasses. The M2 site was covered with a more dense and uniform height (10 m) tree cover and a more dense under- storey, although still far from full.

    The surface-upper air and micrometeoro1ogical observational programs were carried out 24 hours per day for 29 days. Aircraft sampling was conducted on 5 days and 2 nights. The Koorin Expedition is similar in many respects to the Cabauw and Wangara experiments. The Cabauw data set is notable for the depth of layer studied and the duration of the study, whereas Wangara and Koorin both address the spatial variability of the surface and boundary layer over distinctly different homogeneous surfaces. In this respect, the Koorin Expedition provides additional insight into spatial variability by having obtained successive paired aircraft measurements of vertical fluxes of heat at separate locations.

    The Koorin Expedition data exist in report form (Clark and Brook, 1979) and on magnetic tape. The latter is available from J. R. Garratt, CSIRO, Victoria, Australia, or a copy exists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (T. Yamada). The Koorin data have been extensively analyzed and reported in the literature by J. R. Garratt (Garratt, 1978a; 1978b; 1982; Garratt and Francey, 1978; and Garratt, Wyngaard and Francey, 1982).

  89. mkelly says:

    Here is a link to a photo showing the effects of backradiation on frost.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9004

    Very explanatory.

  90. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: March 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    “Hans, yes. But your empirical observations show that temperatures rises under still, cloudy skies. So what is happening? Does the net 60W/m^2 upward flux become a downward flux due to the extra concentration of water vapour in clouds?”

    Well, tell me the answers! What seems a good working hypothesis is that the January Karesuando data fits into three energy flux balanced situations where the surface temperature is about 20C apart. The major pattern would be that clouds prevent IR radiation escaping to space. An energy balance seems to evolve and it would be interesting to get cloud temperature data. When the surface is getting -40 C it is quite likely that the cloud base is warmer than the surface. Mostly clouds are at 600-1000 m asl. Cloud temperature might be both colder and warmer than the surface temperature.

    The five days in late March shows the relative impact of solar irradiation (energy) which can be estimated as a possible energy balance situation lasting about a week. Quantitative calculation can be made.

    What seems to be sure is the big impact on surface temperature by clouds. The Swedish data of a similar kind is almost “limitless” and correlations would be easy to do to verify the connection between surface temperature and clouds. Pressure would also be taken into account as well as precipitation (sparse). I will be back with some information about surface cooling indicating the willingness for a solid surface to emit IR radiation and create cold surface air both at a daily basis and at longer term basis (Mobile Polar Highs).

    A time variable emissivity for unknown reasons might be a partial answer to what is happening.

  91. tallbloke says:

    Hans, I’ve got it, The clouds prevent space beaming coldness at the Earth’s surface. :lol:

  92. Hans says:

    mkelly says: March 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Here is a link to a photo showing the effects of backradiation on frost.
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9004 Very explanatory.

    Agree. Frost behaviour is great to observe. Once I noticed frost on the windows of my car when visiting Åland (an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea) despite +C degrees on the ground and no frost at all there. The amount of frost was
    most developed on the front window most exposed to the nadir direction. I removed the frost on the different windows and calcualted how much per dm^2 to calculate the average nightly upward IR radiation. Very interesting. If remembering correctly the average sublimation flux was about 50 W/m^2 from the front window. IR up radiation has to be (much?) larger.

    Another interesting observation is that a surface layer of ice can be 40 mm from no ice at all over one night in a shallow lake. That is pretty much energy that has to be removed even if the night was cold. I have even noticed ice on stones below a river surface in northern Sweden. Nature is full of surprises.

  93. Hans says:

    tallbloke says: March 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    “Hans, I’ve got it, The clouds prevent space beaming coldness at the Earth’s surface.”

    Exactly, the invers SB law. Much bettter than the AGW crap. We should fear the next ice age. Who wants 2 miles of ice over the land where I live as it was 20000 years ago.

  94. kuhnkat says:

    Tallbloke,

    “What they don’t seem to have realised (or at least acknowledged) is that a warmer atmosphere is an expanded atmosphere, which will carry warmth higher with it. So I suspect that any ‘raising of the effective height of emission’ will have very little or no effect.”

    They also apparently ignore that an expanded atmosphere has more room between the particles so won’t delay as much of the radiation from the lower warmer altitudes as claimed.

  95. mkelly says:

    Hans says: “My hands and face would easily feel any electromagnetic radiation in the IR range at a level of +300 W/m^2.”

    Using a emissivity for CO2 of .2 from Hottel chart with 1 atm and the standard heat transfer equation
    Q/A = e SB T^4

    300 W/m^2 = .2 x 5.67e-8 x T^4
    The CO2 would have to be at 403 K to produce that W/m^2.
    You would feel something at 403 K (130 C).

  96. Tenuc says:

    mkelly says:
    March 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    “Here is a link to a photo showing the effects of backradiation on frost.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9004

    Very explanatory.”

    It also show how the scattered light, which provided the illumination for the photo, has little thermal energy – just like back radiation… :-)

  97. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    MKelly: you must factor in the water vapour too. Under a cloud emissivities are up to 0.9.

  98. wayne says:

    Well Hans, I mentioned I also could not find the mean temperatures so I just spent the time to digitize the graph shown on wikidatpedia and best fitted (weird equation) into the table below if you or anyone else might like or need such rough estimates. I’m listing it to save those a real hassle. Offset or stretch if these seem off in anyway, it does appear that the graph was plotted for real data but source seems not included. So forget looking unless you know where there is better data on this.

    Latitude   Mean   Lat Band
      Band     Temp   Area Wgt
    --------  -----   --------
       2.5    297.8    0.08716    
       7.5    297.5    0.08649    
      12.5    297.0    0.08517    
      17.5    296.1    0.08320    
      22.5    294.9    0.08060    
      27.5    293.3    0.07738    
      32.5    291.3    0.07358    
      37.5    288.8    0.06921    
      42.5    286.0    0.06432    
      47.5    282.7    0.05894    
      52.5    279.0    0.05311    
      57.5    275.0    0.04687    
      62.5    270.9    0.04028    
      67.5    266.9    0.03338    
      72.5    263.2    0.02623    
      77.5    260.0    0.01888    
      82.5    257.7    0.01139    
      87.5    256.5    0.00381    
             ------    -------        
    Mean T... 287.8    --one--   
    (Area Wgt'd)    
    

    My question I am trying to answer is, looking at the area weights for each band, is there enough excess temperature in the bands from the equator to 35° to raise the under 288 temperatures from 40 northward, there is about 57% of land above 288K and 36% of land area below 288K with about 7% at 288K. Now look at your Koorin expedition data and it appears there is excess energy, due to the small losses at night, to be carried toward the poles and boost the missing ‘ghe’ missing gap in temperatures. I just simply know climatologists have calculated this incorrect, as Ned points out, the averaging of radiation and a single calculation of mean temperature, but it that the same if you take the time to compute it band by band. Still working on ot but your data will definitely help my endeavor. That is, is the GHE just a mathematical construct like the badly calculated moon’s mean temperature? And if so, how much is explained by it.

  99. mkelly says:

    Mydogsgotnonose says:
    March 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    MKelly: you must factor in the water vapour too. Under a cloud emissivities are up to 0.9.

    I know that. But my point is about the CO2. And if you do combine water vapor CO2 always is a reduction in the combination.

  100. tchannon says:

    Sorted Hans data as best I can in a sane time.

  101. Hans says:

    Wayne,

    There exists a worldwide monthly data set for both surface temperature and OLW with good spatial resolution but I cannot find it just now. Have a look at the site below all the way to the end. It is very informative.

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Outgoing longwave radiation above Antarctica

  102. Hans says:

    Warm weather in north central US.

    This is an example of how downwelling convection help increasing the temperature over an area over a considerable time period. A “blocking” situation such as this one mostly occur during summer time and has preference at certain longitudes for unknown reasons. it can last up to 3-4 weeks.
    Air from equatorial regions is uploaded on top of the atmospheric high pressure center for almost unknown reasons which makes the high pressure to last. The air on top is sinking and the sinking air is warmed adiabatically. The temperature profile shows a number of inversions and the average temperature can be close to constant (average value) in the troposphere. The convective energy transfer downwards is far higher than IR back welling in this extreme situation. The real measured temperature profiles would be interesting to see.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77465&src=eoa-iotd

  103. Hans says:

    tchannon says: March 20, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    “Sorted Hans data as best I can in a sane time.”

    Thanks Tim,
    Who can refuse to believe in such a nice graph?

  104. David Appell says:

    Moderator wrote:
    Perhaps David could define what he means by ‘fails’.

    Sure. There is a graph of T vs P for both Venus and Earth on

    http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

    It’s the third graph on that page…. It shows that the Huffman P vs T relationship only holds approximately in the region between Earth’s sea level and 11.5 km in altitude (up to the tropospause), where T(P) is linear (though less so on Venus) with approximately the same slope on both planets.

    For pressures above that of Earth’s tropospause (P=210 mb) it fails badly.

    Or consider Mars. Huffman’s theory predicts T(Mars)/T(Earth)=sqrt(rE/rM)=0.81. Mars has an average surface pressure of 6.4 mb (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars), and on Earth the temperature at that pressure is T=235 K (z=34.1 km, via http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/). Huffman’s theory thus predicts the surface temperature of Mars to be 190 K, but it’s an average of 210 K.

    It’s inconceivable that generations of scientists studying planetary climates would have somehow overlooked an explanation of planetary temperatures that is so simple.

    Instead, they considered it on about day 2, discovered it didn’t work, and moved on to better theories. As I showed, Huffman’s result follows from the simple 0-layer climate model (i.e. no GHE) with both albedos=0. Or, if you want to get technical, from setting the factor (1-albedo)/emissivity for both planets equal to each other. Neither is justified. His theory is bunk.

    [Reply] Both Huffman and Nikolov and Zeller state Mars’ Surface pressure is too low for a pressure induced thermal enhancement to be accurately determined.

  105. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    All who have contributed here should read Roy Clark’s magnificent deconstruction of climate pseudo-science on B-H: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/19/climate-models-for-politicians.html?currentPage=2#comments

    Going back to Manabe and Wetherald, he has shown how their honest mistakes became part of the mantra. Interestingly, it’s the very small things I was homing into that matter.

    Thus they use air temperature as a calibration for radiative transfer to and from the ground. Also they set that at the S-B level in a vacuum when it’s coupled convection plus radiation.

    These people have seriously damaged science: time for a complete rebuild by competent scientists from outside.

  106. Hans says:

    Here is a new graph showing temperatures at Koorin day 10. I didn´t dare to ask Tim to make a new graph so my less smooth design will hopefully work (the graph is worth waiting for)

    The most important points I want to make are:

    o During the day solar insolation decides the temperature lapse rate up to about 1500 m and the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate develops. Between 13 an d 15 this is evident from the graph. The temprature difference is about 15 C between 5 m and 1500 m altitude.
    o The daily impact of solar energy to the ground has almost zero effect on the atmosphere above 1500 m. At that altitude the solar energy has been smothed out be processes in the atmosphere and the daily signal is hardly seen. The reason is partially that there exist a subsidence which is about 500 m per 24 hour and new air is coming down creating an inversion above 1500 m. This inversion is destroyed by rising air up to the 1500 m level every early day before noon.
    o During night the ground is cooling fast due to IR radiation upward from the ground which gets coldest. This is not seen in the graph since the soil temperature is at 50 mm depth but for sure I am righ about that.
    o Watch the strong inversion between 5 m and 150 m which develops every night. It is about 4 C. It should be more (probably 6 C in 150 m!) if the surface soil temperature was measured. There is somewhat a complication in Daly Waters since there are some trees in this savannah landscape. The lowest mast temperature is measured at 5 m for this reason I believe.
    o Oddly the total atmosphric energy content is ALWAYS lowest at the ground when potential energy of the air is included in the calculation as it should be. The total energy content of the air is either equal or is increasing as a function of altitude even if the temperature is decreasing.

    The number one observation is that the IR emission from solid earth is so strong and produces so much cold air. This is what has to be taken into consideration when trying to understand the observational evidence from Karesuando shown in the head when there is no solar insolation at all to bother about. The Mobile Polar Highs are a consequence of this type of production and such ones rules the longer term temperature changes in polar areas. Tim, will you please put the Kooring temperature graph in its proper place in this comment. [Rog did –Tim]

  107. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 21, 2012 at 6:13 am Moderator wrote:
    “Perhaps David could define what he means by ‘fails’.”
    David answers:
    “Sure. There is a graph of T vs P for both Venus and Earth on
    http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

    Many thanks for the Graph David. You should also see how I have treated the reason for the creation of Venus observed temperature lapse rate. Your graph http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm shows some alternative opinions on what the surface temperature on Venus should be. There are very strong reasons to consider that the total energy per mass unit is constant below 60 km altitude. That means it should strictly follow the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate from 60 km down to the surface. The lapse rate should be -g/Cp. However on Venus Cp is not a constant. The temperature dependance of Cp is important.

    Cp(N2 (278K)) = 1039 J/(K kg); Cp(N2 (800K)) = 1121 J/(K kg)
    Cp(CO2(278K)) = 843 J/(K kg); Cp(CO2(800K)) = 1168 J/(K kg)

    Hence dT/dz (278) = 10,47 K/km and dT/dz (800) = 7.60 K/km
    Just assume that the average of these values is a fair approximation dT/dz = 8.87((10.47+7.6)/2)

    dT/dz (average) = 9.03 K/km The temperature difference over 60 km would be 542 K
    At the altitude of 60 km the atmospheric temperature is 250 K and hence the surface temperature should be 250 + 542 = 792 K if energy equalisation alone decided the lapse rate (DALR). This is of cource an approximation and to be +/- 10 % is just fine.

    Condensation processes will lower the surface temperature value and the same will happen if the carbon dioxide doesn´t behave exactly as an ideal gas at around 700 K. This calculation strongly support the view that total energy equalisation per mass unit (2:nd law of thermodymnamics) is the dominating process that control the temperatur lapse rate on Venus. This process is much more developed on Venus than on earth. There is zero need for any back radiation to explain the observed energetic situation in the Venusian troposphere. Any atmosphere has to develop a “Greenhouse Effect” if the atmosphere is thick enough. Mars atmosphere isn´t so. The thicker the atmosphere is the stronger is the “Greenhouse Effect” defined as NASA has done.

    You will find the theoretical basis for my treatment above at

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/hans-jelbring-an-alternative-derivation-of-the-static-dry-adiabatic-temperature-lapse-rate/

  108. David Appell says:

    Moderator wrote:
    [Reply] Both Huffman and Nikolov and Zeller state Mars’ Surface pressure is too low for a pressure induced thermal enhancement to be accurately determined.

    Huffman says nothing about a “pressure induced thermal enhancement” — his only assumption is that the ideal gas law is valid so temperature is proportional to pressure. But it’s precisely where pressure is low that the ideal gas law is most valid.

    What about the region above about 200 mb? His theory fails there too.

    His theory also, clearly, ignores albedos — he assumes all of the solar flux incident on Venus and on Earth makes it to the 1000 mb level. It does not. That right there tells you there is something very fishy about that idea.

    This is the kind of cherry picking seen a lot on this blog. Results are accepted when they fit the pre-conceived notion that the greenhouse effect cannot be allowed to exist, and dismissed or brushed aside when they do not. You can’t have it both ways. Same goes with data, too — many, many commenters imply that climate scientists are crooked or the data is fraudulent — but when the data is needed to explain something about how ENSOs are caused by the Sun, suddenly the SST data is good enough (Roger Andrews, 3/16/12).

    PS: For some reason, I never get subscribed to comments by email when I chose that option on my post.

  109. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “Moderator wrote:
    [Reply] Both Huffman and Nikolov and Zeller state Mars’ Surface pressure is too low for a pressure induced thermal enhancement to be accurately determined.”

    I will anwer your objections one by one and the reasons of what happens IMO.
    Observational evidence shows that the top of the troposphere (the coldest place in the atmosphere)
    occurs at a pressure around 0.2-0.1 bar. It is approximately true for Earth, Venus, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptun. This observation was what initiated my article in E&E “The Greenhouse Effect as a function of Atmospheric Mass”. It is a quite odd observation since for example carbon dioxide cannot exist in the atmospheres beyond Jupiter. When the atmosphere is less that about 0. 0.5 bar as on Mars the bulk of IR to space occur from the surface and the importance of an atmosphere to capture and reemit IR diminish. This is also an important process in earths atmosphere which this thread is focusing about by showing data from Karesuando. The importance of the energy equilibriumn per mass unit also diminish and the capability of forming a dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate decreases in a thin atmosphere. I don´t know the reasons why Huffman and N&Z state as you write above.

  110. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “Huffman says nothing about a “pressure induced thermal enhancement” — his only assumption is that the ideal gas law is valid so temperature is proportional to pressure. But it’s precisely where pressure is low that the ideal gas law is most valid.”

    Ignoring what Huffman has said or not I agree that the idal gas law does not decide the lapse rate in our atmosphere. The ideal gas law is equally valid in the troposphere, tropopaus and stratosphere (in all ordinary situation excluding lightning etc)
    The reason why the temperature is falling in the troposphere is that two conditions are met a) the ideal gas law is valid and b) the energy equilization process is dominating (caused by the 2:nd law of thermodynamics applied to energy content per mass unit) in the troposphere. It isn´t so in the tropopaus and above where radiation processes dominates the energy distribution. In the troposphere convective energy distribution is dominating over radiation processes.

  111. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “His theory also, clearly, ignores albedos — he assumes all of the solar flux incident on Venus and on Earth makes it to the 1000 mb level. It does not. That right there tells you there is something very fishy about that idea.”

    IMO the albedo is of importance for the bulk temperature of the any atmosphere and also the average surface temperture of a planet. I cannot understand how the (bond) albedo could be ignored as a variable deciding the energy flux getting absorbed in an atmosphere. It affects the approximate “steady state” of energy flow in any atmosphere.

  112. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “This is the kind of cherry picking seen a lot on this blog. Results are accepted when they fit the pre-conceived notion that the greenhouse effect cannot be allowed to exist, and dismissed or brushed aside when they do not. You can’t have it both ways.”

    This is quite a simplification and generalisation and it is not true. TB is very liberal and promotes different views in the threads. You have been free to express your opinion and I have expressed mine. It is much worse in many pro AGW blogs. It was really easy to ban Realclimate as an example when getting comments ignored or deleted.

  113. Hans says:

    David Appell says: March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “many, many commenters imply that climate scientists are crooked or the data is fraudulent — but when the data is needed to explain something about how ENSOs are caused by the Sun, suddenly the SST data is good enough (Roger Andrews, 3/16/12)”

    “PS: For some reason, I never get subscribed to comments by email when I chose that option on my post.”

    Some climate scientists for sure are crooked and some data has for sure been manipulated (I am well informed about the sea level fraud that has occured and has been pointed out by professor Mörner) For sure evidence pointing to extraterrestrial impact on climate has been ignored by mainstream climatologists (one example is “Sunspots, weather and Climate”, NASA, 1978) for many decades in favour of untested and unverified radiation and climate models.

    I have the same problem with subscription to comments as you have and thought it was my computer.

    Hope my opinions can be of some help to you.

  114. iceskaterfinland says:

    The problem with expecting to feel 300W of radiation per square meter on your hands when you hold them up to the sky is that you have no conception of how cold your hands would feel if there was 0.0W per square meter.

    If you are in a room and you are already heated by the walls radiation and you put your hand near a 300W source you are now adding what you already experienced from the wall.

  115. Hans says:

    iceskaterfinland says: March 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    “The problem with expecting to feel 300W of radiation per square meter on your hands when you hold them up to the sky is that you have no conception of how cold your hands would feel if there was 0.0W per square meter.
    If you are in a room and you are already heated by the walls radiation and you put your hand near a 300W source you are now adding what you already experienced from the wall.”

    My body is losing about 100 Watt when being dressed and I feel comfortable when there is 21 C in a room.
    I suggest that you don´t need any energy to heat your home. You seem to have a sun inside your walls. The +300 W/m^2 is supposed to be outside and I don´t feel it. Any photon that is absorbed does create energy regardless from which direction it comes. Your eyes know about this simple truth. Study its construction.

  116. iceskaterfinland says:

    Hans, my wording was poor. Obviously when i am inside my house i am heating the walls. However my heat loss while heating the walls is quite small compared to what it would be if i was heating a 0 Kelvin surface. Neither of us probably know what it would feel like to be heating a 0K surface with our hands?

    To your point about the 300w per square metre. if you assume the atmosphere above you is a mass emitting at -19C which is 254K then using the stefan boltzmann law you get 236WM2 from that surface. If the surface of your hands could be maintained at 30C and you were facing -19C you would be losing energy at a rate of 478Wm2 so your hands would have a net loss of energy of 142WM2 and you would feel that cooling.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

    But if you were not facing the -19C mass and were facing 0K you would be losing all of the 478Wm2
    and your hands would feel over 3 times cooler if you could keep them at 30C.

    with -19C you have a net loss of 242Wm2, so you lose heat at half the rate you would do if you faced absolute zero

    So it seems to me your logic breaks down that you would feel the warmth. You would not. You would feel the cooling but it would be less than if you faced absolute zero

  117. tchannon says:

    What documentation exists is probably here

    http://en.support.wordpress.com/topic/following/

    I don’t get feeds either.

  118. tchannon says:

    Surprisingly I have XMPP working (jabber, why two names? Long story)
    The multiprotocol client I was using never did really worked.
    Switch to a different one, things change over the years, it works, at least so far.
    For some people the firewalls and routing will pose problems.

    Downside is probably you have a choice of all or nothing, can get noisy on some blogs.

  119. iceskaterfinland says:

    Hans, By the way in the past I have tried to edit Wiki page ‘Greenhouse effect’ to get them to correctly describe aspects of the so called backradiation as well as Greenhouse effects near the surface. I was totally unable to make any changes due a wall of opposition that was without reason.

    It is clear they are working a plan there. The way the Wiki page is written is to require that near surface influences of water are minimised and upper atmosphere influences of C02 are maximised.

    However, the Skeptical Science pages are correctly describing the influence of backradiation, No editors objected to be using those SkS pages, but when i was banned, use of popular science citations and a difficulty in reading more credible scientific references, and a lack of reading textbooks and understanding the topic was cited as a reason for my so called disruptive behaviour.

    I would like to progress that to in some way get some satisfaction if that interests you. Many editors there were involved against me but the principal thug was William M Connolley who already has some history of this kind of oppression of reality.

  120. Hans says:

    iceskaterfinland says: March 22, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    “So it seems to me your logic breaks down that you would feel the warmth. You would not. You would feel the cooling but it would be less than if you faced absolute zero”

    No, my logic does not breaks down since I know that each photon (electromagnetic radiation) carry energy and you can easily feel 300 W/m^2 with your hands since most of the photons will be absorbed by my hand. Turn on the stove in your kitchen and you will feel that effect before the warm air is coming upwards to heat your hand even more.

    If you take an apple from your refrigerator (-15 C) and place it in a room at 21 C it will warm. Hang it in a thread from the roof. Do you think it will warm because the walls are sending IR radiation towards it? Or do you think that air molecules will transfer an energy flux to it until the rate of heat into the apple is equal to the rate of heat leaving the apple and the apple is at ambient temperature?

    If you do believe that radiation from the walls (300 W/m^2) plays a significant role for warming the apple, show me your calculations so I can check them.

    If you relly want to know how much the IR radiation from the walls are contributing put the apple in a room with no air (vacuum) and measure the warming rate in both the suggested experiments.

  121. Hans, Your hands can only give you an indication if they are colder than your blood or are warmer than your blood. Something like that anyway.

    So if your hand was in a vacuum (something that apparently is not totally unsafe) your hand would be a radiation thermometer of a sort. You would know if you are cooling or being heated by radiation.

    As I explained, if your hands are emitting at a rate of 478wm2 but are only absorbing at a rate of 240wm2 your hands feel cool.

    Maybe you could clarify what your point of view in this discussion is for me please?

    Are you saying that the Stefan-Boltzman law is flawed, and if so in what manner?.

    Related to that, are you saying a molecule in a body at an average of 100C *must* reject light coming from an object at 101C, because you are saying that in some manner the two surfaces are coupled in some manner that is contrary to the typical scientific view?

    Are you saying that light is heat? Or that light and heat are different energies? The view of Maxwell and Planck is that light is a different energy to the energy of heat where heat was considered to be molecules in motion. Ie heat was internal kinetic energy.

    We can then talk about this with a bit more clarity as to where each of us is coming from.

    Sincerely

    Andrew

  122. Hans, Regarding the apple at -15C.

    There is a SB calculator towards the bottom of this page

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

    If the walls are at 21C and the apple has a diameter of 7cm then from

    http://www.csgnetwork.com/circle_sphere_area_calculator.html

    You can plug in those values to get

    39.87329783552589W of warming from radiation alone upon the surface of that apple.

    I should point out I am not a maths genius but you have the tools now to do this yourself to check

  123. Hans,

    I had not noticed the SB calculator had a result for cm2 the result is much smaller than i said at only .3989W total warming of the apple.

  124. Hans, oops I was using the circle calculator and not noticing the sphere results were lower down

    The warming is a bit higher at 1.65W or 0.38 calorie per second. which is enuf to warm 22g of water by 1 degree in minute

    if the apple has the same density of water then in one minute the 178G apple will warm an average of 22/178 of a degree = 0.13C of total warming per minute. The surface is going to warm faster and slow down the rate of transfer though.

    But again dont rely on my maths!!

    Another thing i just tried is to put a freezer drawer on the side of a worktop so it overhangs slightly and you would imagine there is no cold air accumulating there at a distance and then to put your hand up and down about 20cm from that drawer. I get the feeling it is colder on the freezer drawer side when i do that

  125. Bernhard says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

    Roy Spencer`s “backradiation experiment” with the 160 & 100 F bars stops with the conclusion:
    “Its temperature then rises until it, once again, is emitting IR radiation at the same rate as it is receiving energy from its surroundings (and the electric heater).”
    “Its” being the bar that was before at 160 F. No value is given for the energy supply, so let`s assign X Watts and for the “back radiation” B Watts.
    Spencer has the 160 F bar absorbing B watts from the 100 F bar and heating up. But after the temperature has been raised this bar must now radiate at
    A+B Watts which would in turn also heat the 100 F bar to a higher temperature which in turn would later radiate at B+b1 Watts back to the source.
    The source according to Spencer must later re-radiate X+B+b1 Watts…and so on till we have a China syndrom backradiation meltdown, unless we do apply Kirchoff`s 2.nd
    law of thermodynamics.

  126. Hans says:

    Bernard,

    The graph in the head shows real temperatures at Karesuando. It is a truth that clouds are correlated with higher surface temperature when there is zero solar irradiation. There is no need to prove or disprove that truth.

    The problem is to understand when and why IR back radiation does exist. IMO the there is no reason to expect a net radiation between equal mass AIR air parcels when they have equal total energy content (gravity not forgotten). The situation is more complicated when solid IR emitters exist as on the surface and as in clouds. Solids are vastly bettter IR emitters than air in most cases, especially if the air is dry.

    I doubt that Kirchoff´s law is to much help trying to unravel the causes for the Karsuando temperature curve for several reasons.