The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality

Posted: November 7, 2012 by tallbloke in alarmism, atmosphere, climate, Clouds, general circulation, Incompetence, Ocean dynamics, solar system dynamics, weather

This is a good primer post on energy balance by Joe Postma on his new blog. It explains his thesis in easier everyday language than his older ‘Copernicus’ post which was published here in April this year.

Reality-based model of the global energy flow which does not require the artificial creation of an AGHE.

In Part 1, we discussed how the idea for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) originated in the first place, and that it was due to a simple and needles mathematical error  of diluting the power of sunshine from its real value to a value which is far too cold and doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality.

Many of the climate scientists I have discussed this problem with say that the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is irrelevant, because the diluted and cold “average” value of sunshine power is simply how much strength it has over an entire day, and so the result, they claim, is the same.

But is this correct?  Well, if you’ve read the “Copernicus” paper, you would understand how obvious it is that unrealistic freezing cold sunshine at -18oC can’t do any of the same things that the real power of sunshine can actually do all by itself.  You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference.  That was the whole point of inventing the AGHE in the first place!

So, no, a fictional flat Earth model and a real model couldn’t be any more different.  Theyare different, and so they are different.  They don’t do the same thing.

Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it.  However, they only admitted that such models were fiction after I had exposed it and forced them into saying so: they weren’t very open about it at all.  Also, why would we use something fictional that doesn’t actually physically exist to teach the exact same thing which is claimed to exist?  Why would we teach non-reality physics as reality?  How incredibly contradictory.  It would be good for these climate scientists to resolve their disagreement with the other bunch who claim that the difference between fiction and reality makes no difference.  The one thing no one can admit, however, is that without the cold-sunshine paradigm, there is no reason to invent the AGHE at all.

So let us have a look at the reality-based model once again and briefly develop an understanding of how reality actually works with the real power of sunshine.  An updated version (it is a work in progress) of the global energy model is shown at the top.

Read the rest here

The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: Thanks, that makes good sense.

    Trick: “With an optically thick atm. in place, emissivity = 0.8, the emitting level is higher so due to lapse rate up to where T=255K measured by satellites, find the surface is T=289K.
    This makes good science sense to me, others seem to have trouble with this science. Why?
    Applies to Venus, Mars…et. al.”

    I think ‘optically thick’ is probably being conflated with ‘denser near the surface due to pressure’. So L-W radiation is wrongly presumed important, when in fact it’s the heat capacity of the air and ocean directly absorbing incoming S-W radiation which is much more important.

  2. wayne says:

    Maybe I should have posted this (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/stephen-wilde-the-myth-of-backradiation/#comment-36512) here on a more up-to-date thread about the greenhouse effect and lapse.

    Trick, the (λ-1)/λ within is the isentropic expansion factor and this brings back to mind all of the discussion nearly a year ago on whether and atmosphere has an inherent natural lapse or not. You might take a look if you don’t mind. I’m open for any comments or explanations; I can’t seem to answer ‘why’.

    [Reply] This thread has 600 comments and is getting unwieldy to load. I’ve kicked off a new one to discuss Wayne’s findings here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/wayne-jackson-new-identity-linking-meteorological-phenomena/

  3. wayne says:

    Trick, I meant to say the λ in the (λ-1)/λ is the isentropic expansion factor. Please excuse.

    [Reply] This thread has 600 comments and is getting unwieldy to load. I’ve kicked off a new one to discuss Wayne’s findings here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/wayne-jackson-new-identity-linking-meteorological-phenomena/

  4. Tim Folkerts says:

    Tallbloke says: <i"It’s high time you stepped back, looked at the bigger picture, and binned the inadequate model you’re clinging to."

    Why would I want to abandon a simplified but useful model just when I almost have gotten you to see the truth? ;-)

    Well, it seems that both Tallbloke and Joe agree with my Points 1-4 (posted here: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality/#comment-36441), since it is only in Point 5 that tallbloke (and apparently Joe) thinks I am wrong. This is a huge step in reaching a consensus.

    So let’s discuss Point 5, where I said

    5) The GHGs in the upper troposphere are radiating BELOW 255K. Other places (eg the surface) must be radiating ABOVE 255 K to compensate.

    And tallbloke replied

    This is where you go wrong. The radiatively active gases in the upper troposphere radiate at a temperature commensurate with their surroundings. The temperature of their surroundings is mainly set by convection and latent heat and direct absorption of solar energy.

    First, note that I never discussed anything about WHY the troposphere was cool at the top. The only truly important (and experimentally confirmed) point is that it IS colder up there. The discussion at the moment is simply about conservation of energy, not about why the upper atmosphere is cooler.

    So here is a simple ranking task to get warmed up. Rank the following four situations from highest to lowest, based on the amount of IR power radiated by 1 m^2 in the wavelength band from 14.5-15.5 um (as seen from above the earth, say by an orbiting satellite).
    a) CO2 at 215 K
    b) CO2 at 255 K
    c) CO2 at 288 K
    d) ocean at 215 K
    e) ocean at 255 K
    f) ocean at 288 K
    g) pure N2 at 215 K
    h) pure N2 at 255 K
    i) pure N2 at 288 K

    I would rank them
    1) c & f (tied for most)
    2) b & e (tied for middle)
    3) a & d (tied for low)
    4) g & h & i (no significant thermal IR radiation)

    Both liquid water and gaseous CO2 are nearly perfect absorbers and perfect emitters of IR in this wavelength band. Thus at the same temperature they should emit about the same power in this band. (they may not be exactly tied, but they should be close)

    Now rank these from high to low for total power radiated at ALL wavelengths by the overall ensemble.
    a) ocean at 288 K with 288 K pure N2 atmosphere at TOA
    b) ocean at 288 K with 215 K pure N2 atmosphere at TOA
    c) ocean at 288 K with 288 K (N2 + CO2) atmosphere at TOA
    d) ocean at 288 K with 215 K (N2 + CO2) atmosphere at TOA

    1) a & b & c tied (at about 390 W/m^2)
    2) d (somewhat less than 390 W/m^2, maybe 350 W/m^2, but the exact number is not critical)

    Since pure N2 neither radiates nor absorbs a significant amount or IR, its presence at any temperature does not change the radiation emitted to space. But cool CO2 will reduce the radiation in the 14.5 – 15.5 um band (among other bands).

    Finally, set of connected ranking questions:
    Which region above would cool most slowly at night, absorbing 0 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight?
    Which region above would warm most quickly mid-morning, absorbing 390 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight?
    Which region above would warm most quickly during midday, absorbing 900 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight?

    Answer —- d for all three!
    (d) loses a few less W/m^2 at night, so the ensemble cools more slowly.
    (d) be warming slightly, while the other three would be holding steady.
    (d) gains the same W/m^2 during the day (900 W/m^2), but looses fewer, so this ensemble has a larger net gain and will warm more quickly.

    (d) will warm more quickly and/or cool more slowly in any circumstances of incoming sunlight. This means (d) will eventually end up warmer than a, b, or c. (this also hold at any other sets of temperatures, as long as the TOA has GHGs and is cooler than the surface.

    I encourage you to look at the satellite spectrum here and imagine what it would look like for each of the situations outlined above. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2-absorption/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg
    You can also use Modtran to calculate the spectra in various circumstance. Try setting CH4, O3 and water to zero to focus on the effect of just one gas (CO2). Then try different locations (tropical, midlatitude summer, ….) to get different surface temperatures for the model.

    http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html

    ******************************************
    Yes, convection and latent heat and winds and the lapse rate all play a role to determining the specific temperature of the TOA & surface, but that only affects the AMOUNT of warming from the cold GHGs, not the EXISTENCE of the warming.

    (d), the world with a warm surface and cooler GHG’s at the TOA will always be warmer than a world without cooler GHGs at the TOA.

  5. Stephen Wilde says:

    ” the world with a warm surface and cooler GHG’s at the TOA will always be warmer than a world without cooler GHGs at the TOA”

    Why would the surface be warmer if the non radiative processes speed up to eliminate the theoretical warming effect of GHGs ?

    If GHGs slow down radiative heat transfer and non radiative processes speed it up again where would there be warming ?

  6. Bryan says:

    Tim Folkerts says

    “Since pure N2 neither radiates nor absorbs a significant amount or IR, its presence at any temperature does not change the radiation emitted to space. ”

    In a mixed CO2 N2 situation the temperature of N2 does matter.

    A large fraction of IR emissions are collision induced by N2 hitting CO2

    Higher N2 temperature => more IR emissions.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Tim F
    I never discussed anything about WHY the troposphere was cool at the top. The only truly important (and experimentally confirmed) point is that it IS colder up there. The discussion at the moment is simply about conservation of energy, not about why the upper atmosphere is cooler.

    I’m sure you’ll be keen to address the points raised by Bryan and Stephen then. ;)

  8. Konrad says:

    Over 600 posts and so little progress. On this thread I have given you an easy experiment costing only $150 that proves that AGW is physically impossible on this planet. I even gave you the easy version of the experiment, no need for peltier chips, dry air bottles or Q-Cell insulation. Even if you go totally cheap and dirty it will still work. Just use some of those hot/cold gel packs you can freeze in the fridge or heat with boiling water to replace the heating and cooling tubes I illustrated. Add two identical corrugated cardboard boxes and use some gaffer tape to hold the gel packs in the right positions. How hard is that? Yet no one here has even attempted to replicate this painfully simple experiment.

    Mathematics is not science. You cannot answer scientific questions with maths if your maths does not in any way represent the balances and flows within the physical system you are trying to model. The radiative balance maths used by alarmists and some sceptics like Joe does not include conductive and convective flows, or for that matter gravity. The easily replicated experiment I gave given you clearly shows that that when these forms of energy exchange are included in atmospheric modelling, then AGW becomes physically impossible. The answer to AGW can be found with two cardboard boxes, four gel packs, some gaffer tape and a dual probe thermometer. It really is that simple.

  9. Tim Folkerts says:

    I don;’t have time to address all the issues.
    * Trick is definitely wrong saying that DWIR could be somehow be focused to cook a turkey.

    Stephen says: “Why would the surface be warmer if the non radiative processes speed up to eliminate the theoretical warming effect of GHGs ?
    If the non-radiative process did indeed speed up to eliminate the theoretical warming effect of GHGs — ie if these processes kept the TOA at the same temperature as the surface! — then you would indeed eliminate the warming effect of GHGs.
    The simple fact is that the non-radiative processes do not speed up enough to keep the TOA as warm as the surface, so there is a warming effect, as I outlined.

    Bryan says “Higher N2 temperature => more IR emissions.”
    This is the same answers above. When higher N2 temperatures raise the temperature of the CO2 at the TOA to the same temperature as the surface, then the IR emissions in the CO2 bands will be the same whether they come from the warm surface or the warm TOA, and the “radiative atmospheric effect” would cease to warm the surface.

    I’m not holding my breath waiting for conduction, convection, or latent heat to warm the TOA to the temperature of the surface.

    Tallbloke says: “I’m sure you’ll be keen to address the points raised by Bryan and Stephen then.”
    OK .. what next? You see, when you have the science on your side, there are always answers to these sorts of challenges.

    [Reply] Not sure Tim. I don’t think we’ve got time to address all your issues again either.

  10. Trick says:

    Tim F. 2:55 pm: “* Trick is definitely wrong saying that DWIR could be somehow be focused to cook a turkey.”

    From 11/25 8:16 pm 1st law flux-in – flux-out = 0 in LTE:
    1370 * 0.7 – 4*sigma*(1-0.8/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289K

    Rearrange:
    1370 * 0.7 + 4*sigma*(0.8/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 – 4*sigma * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 find Teq. = 289K.

    959 + 639 – 1598 = 0 LTE.

    The second term is the flux-in density near surface from atm. emissivity GHE slowing the cooling of Earth’s atm. with enough flux density over the entire planet to cause the whole planet +33K.

    Tim F. must then think that DWIR flux-in when Maxwell’s Demon opens the oven door selectively to allow only the DWIR flux-in to flow through to a favored side of tallbloke’s NASA oven 11/15 4:44 pm above would NOT be enough to cook my turkey.

    I could cook it well done with that much energy flux-in easily with a Demon using maybe only 3m^2 of DWIR = 1,917 W of DWIR but geez Maxwell’s demon has actually been killed off again so, alas I cannot cook with the NASA oven. The last time Demon was killed off, it drowned under a flood of garbage in 1982 at the age of 115 once again caused by 2nd law. Watch out for typo.s.

  11. Tim Folkerts says:

    Trick, I am not completely sure I follow all of your steps, but “Maxwell’s Demon” and the 2nd law make it impossible for the DWIR by itself to warm the turkey.

    The DWIR comes from the region just above the surface — lets suppose their is a cloud at 288 K a little ways above the ground. The cloud will radiate about like a BB, ie about 390 W/m^2. The 2nd law says that this radiation coming from a 288 K region cannot (by itself) warm anything to a temperature above 288 K, or you would be violating the 2nd Law. No amount of lenses or mirrors or other tricks will get around this. No arrangement of mirrors or lenses can get more than 390 W/m^2 from the cloud. If the turkey is at 288 K, it will be in equilibrium, itself radiating 390 W/m^2.

    If the IR flux_in is higher @ 640W/m^2 as you suggest, then you could raise the turkey to 53 C, at which point the turkey would be radiating 640 W/m^2 itself. It would be in thermal equilibrium and would not warm any further. This is only moderately warm tap water, and would not cook a turkey.

    Said another way, the IR is ALREADY coming from every direction. Reflecting extra IR in can only be accomplished by blocking similar IR that would have been coming from that direction anyway.

    (NOTE: sunlight is different. Sunlight has a “temperature” of ~ 5780 K, coming from a very specific direction only. A mirror can redirect some of the solar energy from other places onto the turkey. You will be blocking some of the “cold” photons from the sky with your mirror, but you will be adding “hot” photons from the sun. The net effect is to increase the heating of the turkey if you focus sunlight (and cooling some other nearby patch of ground that is now in the shade). In principle, a solar oven could reach 5780K, but in practice you will never reach this sort of temperature.)

  12. Trick says:

    Tim F. 7:45 pm: I must admit it was a very busy, nimble fingered demon in life!

    Maxwell knew that but even then wasn’t good enough to kill it. At 2700 W a convection oven gets to 500F. So 2000 W ought to get the job done with temp. set at 75% (roughly 3m^2 of demon controllable DWIR). The demon makes the atm. above cooler by the amount it warms my turkey – same as Maxwell’s in that one chamber gets cooler, the other hotter.

    Since I instruct the demon to let none of the “turkey would be radiating 640 W/m^2 itself” flux-out out, my turkey can get hot enough to cook, I even have to instruct the demon to keep the temp. at recommendation & to take the turkey out when the dealie pops too.

    This all for fun, no big deal to lose sleep over. Controllable power is always a good deal; I recall a Prof. admonishing me (or as one of the class): “Put enough controllable power on your bathtub, and you can make IT fly”. And the demon is now killed off as Maxwell knew it must so no longer possible to control DWIR to cook my turkey due to 2nd law but he couldn’t prove it & as you write; a classic thought experiment that lived 115 years.

  13. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joe Postma said:

    “You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference.”

    Very true, and worse than that, water vapour, which is considered to be the dominant GHG, reduces peak daytime surface temperature (tropics, summer @higher lat.). So it’s back to the heat retention.
    But why go spoil it all with the idea that DWIR doesn’t do anything?

  14. Tim Folkerts says:

    Ulric (and Joe),

    It is Joe’s model that is lacking — it clearly violates conservation of energy. Sunshine by itself can warm SOME parts of the earth to sufficient temperatures to get “reasonable temperatures. For example, as Joe calculated, the POINTS THAT PASS UNDER THE ZENITH will get an average of F*(1-alpha)*(0.637) = 610 W/m^2 (as is easily confirmed by anyone with a decent understanding of integration in spherical coordinates) during the day, corresponding to his 49 C (as is easily confirmed by anyone with a knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). And of course 0 W/m^2 during the night (corresponding to -270 C).

    So those spots can radiate no more than an average of (610+0)/2 = 305 W/m^2 during a 24 hour period (if such spots are going maintain a consistent temperature from one dawn to the next). This makes the “average” temperature no more than – 2 C. The daytime side is ~51 C cooler than it might be (as it stores up extra energy). The nighttime side is 270 C warmer than it might be (as it releases the stored energy from the previous daytime).

    Yes, Joe’s model with “real sunshine” will have an average temperature at the EQUATOR of no more than -2 C! Other parts will average a cooler temperature; the planet as a whole cannot average more than -18 C.

    And you can save the model with ” heat retention”. The amount of heat that can be retained is limited by the total amount of energy received (which averages F*(1-alpha)*(0.637) = 610 W/m^2 during the day) and by the amount that must be radiated at the temperature of the surface at any instant.

    *********************************************************************

    DON’T TRUST MY NUMBERS! CALCULATE THEM FOR YOURSELF!
    For example (Joe or Ulric), how much power is absorbed specifically for a point passing under the Zenith during the day? Give your numbers and how you got them. (I already explained my answer waaaay up-thread how I got F*(1-alpha)*(0.637) = 610 W/m^2 for points passing under the zenith). If you think the average for the whole hemisphere is 610 W/m^2, then you should be able to do the easier integral to find the average for the specific points that pass thru the zenith.

  15. Tim Folkerts says:

    For those who still cling to Joe’s characterization of my numbers as “fantasy” …

    Check Wikipedia’s entry on “insolation”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
    Check NASA’s handy calculator. http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/srlocat.html In particular, check the equator on March 21 or Sept 21 to get the equator passing thru the zenith.
    (Or Google any other source you want for “top of atmosphere insolation” )
    (Or check the results I posted earlier)

    The 24 hr average TOA insolation at the equator is ~ 435 W/m^2 using either reference.
    The 12 hr daylight average TOA insolation is then ~ 2*435 = 870 W/m^2
    The albedo-corrected 12 hr surface insolation is then 0.7*870 = 609 W/m^2

    This is the number Joe has when he claims an “input temperature” of 49 C => his number is only good for point passing thru the zenith, like the equator on the first day of spring or fall. (it is worth noting that his “input temperature” for the night side would be -270 C)

    The equator receives an average of ~ 610 W/m^2 at the equator for 12 hr.
    The equator emits an average of ~ (610/2) = ~ 305 W/m^2 at the equator for 24 hr. EVEN IF the effects of latent heat, specific heat, wind, etc were large enough to smooth out all the temperature swings and thus emit thermal IR evenly for 24 hr, 305 W/m^2 corresponds to -2 C. (If the equator got warmer than -2 C during the day, it would have to get colder than -2 C at night).

    *******************************************************

    One simple solution is to say that the temperatures above are for the “ensemble” of the surface and the atmosphere, not for the surface itself. Yes. Exactly! Any radiation coming from the cold atmosphere that has an average temperature BELOW -2 C would allow the surface to be at an average temperature ABOVE -2 C.

    Of course … radiation from the atmosphere IS radiation from the GHGs = “the atmospheric greenhouse effect”

    *******************************************************
    CHECK THE NUMBERS YOURSELF. Then tell me what is wrong.

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Of course … radiation from the atmosphere IS radiation from the GHGs = “the atmospheric greenhouse effect”

    Except that any such gets cancelled by faster non radiative processes.

    The real reason for the warm surface on the night side in the absence of insolation is in fact compression of descending air as it reaches the surface. That air reaches its highest temperatures at the surface as a result of such compression.

    No need to propose DWIR at all.

    If you envisage a completely non GHG atmosphere there can be little or no outward radiation to space from the atmosphere so energy can only be lost by radiation from the surface.

    Therefore energy must be transferred to the surface somehow but the air can’t radiate to the surface either so no DWIR.

    The way energy must be returned to the surface on the night side could then only be from compressing air as it descends which then warms the surface that then radiates out.

    Proposing horizontal energy transport instead doesn’t work because, the atmosphere being three dimensional, horizontal flows are always associated with vertical flows too so you still get net compression and warming of air on the night side overall with a corresponding decompression and cooling of air on the day side.

    That would require a very vigorous circulation.

    If one then adds GHGs then they can radiate out to space and to the surface but that doesn’t make the surface hotter or cooler. The radiation from GHGs just makes it easier for the system to lose heat directly to space, or indirectly to space via a faster radiative energy transfer to the surface and then to space.

    In that situation the circulation slows down as a result of adding GHGs but the net thermal outcome is the same as before with solar energy in equalling longwave out.

    Alternatively if one argues as the AGW crowd do that introducing GHGs reduces energy loss to space (rather than facilitating it) then in that case the faster radiative transfer of energy to the surface would cause a faster circulation as a result of adding GHGs but the net thermal outcome is still the same as before with solar energy in equalling longwave energy out.

    So whichever way AGW theory tries to argue it the effect is still zero as regards surface temperatures but instead either a slowing down or a speeding up of the non radiative processes governed by the air circulation.

  17. Folkerts said: “It is Joe’s model that is lacking — it clearly violates conservation of energy.”

    Have you never seen a differential equation before in your life? It is impossible for “the conservation of heat energy ordinary differential equation” to violate conservation of energy, by definition! The GHE violates conservation of energy by causing additional heating on top of what the Sun can already provide, and my paper proved that this doesn’t occur anyway.

    Folkerts said: “Sunshine by itself can warm SOME parts of the earth to sufficient temperatures to get “reasonable temperatures.””

    You never heard of a desert? The surface gets up to 70 Celsius in the day time! 70 Celsius! You call that a “reasonable temperature”? That’s bloody hot! My work has proved that this is due to SUNSHINE. DWIR has nothing to do with desert temperatures. When more water vapor is present, the high is actually lowered, and the low overnight is risen, because of the increased time constant from the thermal capacity and because of latent heat. The ZEB Plot proves that energy is going missing in the tropic regions, and reappears beyond that. Latent heat and *weather itself* is the only place energy can get trapped.

    And you still have no clue as to what an integrated average is. You still can’t even comprehend a linear average, which you yourself even calculated earlier on. So let’s use YOUR numbers! Here are TIM’s numbers everybody: The Sun heats the Earth with a power equating to +30C on the day-side. That’s TIM’s calculation, a linear average. But if you admit that, then you also have to acknowledge that there is a maximum around the zenith, a huge surface area larger than North America, +- 25 degrees about the zenith, at around +90C input. See: deserts! Deserts: QED. Deserts prove that the Sun heats the ground in real time to extremely high temperatures.

    Folkerts said: “how much power is absorbed specifically for a point passing under the Zenith during the day”

    The total power absorbed, averaged over a day, has NOTHING to do with the temperature actually generated. The total power might be 240 W/m^2 for the day averaged, but the temperature actually got to +70C in a desert, or +35C in the tropics, and that was from the Sun.

  18. Folkerts said: “The 24 hr average TOA insolation at the equator is ~ 435 W/m^2 using either reference.”

    There you go with averaging again.

    Folkerts said: “The albedo-corrected 12 hr surface insolation is then 0.7*870 = 609 W/m^2
    This is the number Joe has when he claims an “input temperature” of 49 C => his number is only good for point passing thru the zenith, like the equator on the first day of spring or fall. (it is worth noting that his “input temperature” for the night side would be -270 C)”

    Integrated average Tim. Or if you want, by your own numbers, linear average, which is still +30C which is still hot enough to warm the day side. YOUR OWN numbers prove that the Sun is warm enough to heat the day-side, with enough energy absorbed and left over to keep the night warm.
    Tim, I know this is very confusing for you, but there is no input on the night side.

    Tim: “The equator emits an average of ~ (610/2) = ~ 305 W/m^2 at the equator for 24 hr. ”

    Where do you invent this number from? Tim is inventing BS! The ZEB plot SHOWS that at the equator, only~240 W/m^2 is emitted, not 305! Tim is just making up wild fantasy numbers to “prove” imaginary meaningless points. Less energy is emitted from the equator than is absorbed: the only place heat can be trapped in such a way is in latent heat, and in the circulation of the climate (i.e. weather) itself. Why does the equtaor not emit as much as it receives? Because energy is stored in the system as latent heat AND as the weather itself. The absorbed energy makes its way to the poles, and it is emitted there.
    Tim just proved to everyone that he is making up meaningless numbers tomake meaningless points: If he actually referred or even know about real-world data, he should have known that the equator emits less energy than it receives.

    Tim: “EVEN IF the effects of latent heat, specific heat, wind, etc were large enough to smooth out all the temperature swings and thus emit thermal IR evenly for 24 hr, 305 W/m^2 corresponds to -2 C. (If the equator got warmer than -2 C during the day, it would have to get colder than -2 C at night).”

    But the Sun DOES make it much warmer than -2C during the day! Have you no knowledge or connection to reality whatsoever?

    Tim: “One simple solution is to say that the temperatures above are for the “ensemble” of the surface and the atmosphere, not for the surface itself. Yes. Exactly!”

    Do you actually have no training in science and math whatsoever? Please let us know…it would help.

    Tim: “Any radiation coming from the cold atmosphere that has an average temperature BELOW -2 C would allow the surface to be at an average temperature ABOVE -2 C. ”

    The SUN makes the temperatures much hotter on the surface, you just need to go on vacation to a sunny destination and experience it. Do you live in the North Pole? Have you really never experienced direct sunshine before? Have you really never burned your feet on sand or asphalt at the beach or parking lot? The definition of an average means that higher and lower values will be found. In an ensemble where the heat is mainly deposited on one-end, that end will be the hottest, the other end will be the coolest, and the average will be in between. The cold end doesn’t “allow” the hot end to do anything…the hot end is hot because that’s where the heating occurs in the first place.

    Tim: “Of course … radiation from the atmosphere IS radiation from the GHGs = “the atmospheric greenhouse effect””

    Yes and in my paper and with Carl’s data we proved that DWIR doesn’t actually cause heating on top of the power of sunshine. The SUN causes the heating, not DWIR.

    Tim: “CHECK THE NUMBERS YOURSELF. Then tell me what is wrong. ”

    What is wrong is that you don’t understand basic math, you don’t have an actual ability to work with numbers in the first place or understand them, you’ve never been outside before in your entire life and experienced and observed the effect of direct sunshine heating, and when you make arguments you don’t even refer to real-world observations and data and knowledge anyway.

  19. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “The amount of heat that can be retained is limited by the total amount of energy received [...] and by the amount that must be radiated at the temperature of the surface at any instant.”

    Or by the ratio of the two at different temperatures, else there would be no heat retention.

  20. See my

    http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/09/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-5-zero-energy-balance-and-latent-heat-trapping/

    for discussion on the FACT that less energy is emitted around the equator than is actually absorbed. The fact that less energy is emitted than absorbed at the equator proves several things: 1) that the Sun heats the climate, all by itself; 2) that some of the absorbed energy is going missing in latent heat and in the weather itself, because the weather is itself energy and the only place this energy came from was the Sun; 3) the weather and latent heat is WHY the absorbed energy doesn’t show up as equal radiation density as coming in; 4) that there’s more than enough aborbed energy left over to both keep the night-side warm, AND, to keep the poles warmer than they would otherwise be, 5) that when all put together, averaged out as a giant ensemble, the global output is still equal to the day-side input.

  21. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:22 pm: “Except that any such gets cancelled by faster non radiative processes. The real reason for the warm surface on the night side in the absence of insolation is in fact compression of descending air as it reaches the surface.”

    Stephen should read section 3.4 in “Atmospheric Thermodynamics” by Bohren/Albrecht entitled “DALR Do pistons and cylinders inhabit the atmosphere?”

    Stephen’s assertion clipped above sounds plausible but has not been proven anywhere. Stephen could be the first. Show the diabatic process is really adiabatic, amount of air descending, the compression, the -Dt/dt that results at night for Earth integrated over the night Earth surface. Remember to account for the IR emission of the atm. and how that is nulled out physically.

    Maxwell could have dismissed what became known as his demon the moment he invented it simply by pointing out that a colder chamber cannot warm a warmer chamber like the demon was doing selectively letting in warmer molecules. A clear violation of the brand spankin’ new 2nd Law. But as good as he was with the Theory of Heat, Maxwell could not prove the demon out of existence. Something seemingly even as simple as that is difficult to prove.

    Stephen must prove his assertion that compression of descending air is the real reason for the warm surface at night and show his work.

    Before starting the work, Stephen should re-read Bohren section 3.4 “Do pistons and cylinders inhabit the atmosphere?”

  22. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said:
    “The real reason for the warm surface on the night side in the absence of insolation is in fact compression of descending air as it reaches the surface.”

    So those cold dry clear nights have less compression? :)

    “That air reaches its highest temperatures at the surface as a result of such compression.”

    5cm Tmin is nearly always colder than 2 meters Tmin inland, that’s basic meteorology.
    weatheronline link 1

    weatheronline link 2

  23. Ulric Lyons says:
    “Very true, and worse than that, water vapour, which is considered to be the dominant GHG, reduces peak daytime surface temperature (tropics, summer @higher lat.). So it’s back to the heat retention.
    But why go spoil it all with the idea that DWIR doesn’t do anything?”
    ___________________

    Yes indeed, heat retention from latent heat and the strongest GHG actually causes lower temperatures, not higher, which proves that GHG effects are already simply a function of their specific heat capacity. If it weren’t this way, then water vapor should cause additional heating due to its strong ability to radiate; instead, its effect is actually already described simply by its heat capacity, and latent heat.

    On DWIR: Well, with Carl’s data and my last paper, we proved that DWIR doesn’t actually cause additional heating on the surface, on top of what the Sun can already do. With ~300 W/m^2 extra of heating power from DWIR, that should have shown up easily. It didn’t, and this has something very important to say about how adding “cold” radiation power to “hot” radiation doesn’t actually increase the temperature of the target. Cold can’t warm up hot in other words. This is what the flat Earth models and the GHE are based on.

    So now we have this other argument for the GHE, and this is really quite silly that the GHE doesn’t actually have a well-defined definition. But what is DWIR now said to do? And not by the IPCC, but by some basically random people, scientists some of them, on the internet?

    DWIR doesn’t actually cause additional heating than the Sunshine, and everyone agrees with that now. I should be thanked for proving that and having all these people agree with me because it is a very important restriction on the physics, and on whatever the GHE might be. I should be getting back-slaps and attaboys for that work! :)

    So, now DWIR is said to slow down cooling at night. That’s all it does. But by how much does it do this? No one else has actually shown the numbers. What is that number? How much is the surface supposed to cool down at night in any case? So far, again, I am the only one who has attempted to calculate that. You take the known output at TOA, which the ZEB plots shows is ~240 W/m^2, and calculate how much total energy actually gets lost over night. Then, you compare that total night time energy loss to the actual amount of stored energy in the system. By knowing how much energy you started with, and how much you lost, you can calculate the associated drop in temperature. The drop in temperature for the whole system over night is thus ~1K. However, the drop at the surface with Carl’s data was actually ~10K, and, if we remember a desert, the drop is easily 40K. Most of the drop in temperature therefore occurs at and near the surface. So why not just say that night-time DWIR actually helps cause cooling, rather than delay cooling? There’s is no delay measurable…but the opposite.

    Don’t forget that DWIR has another half – UWIR, and this UWIR is being lost, whereas if IR from the atmosphere didn’t exist at all, then said energy wouldn’t be lost at all. The fact that DWIR exists means that UWIR exists, and if UWIR exists then it is net cooling, not net warming, since half the internal thermal energy is being LOST, and no more energy is coming in over night. If DWIR/UWIR/IR didn’t exist at all, the atmosphere wouldn’t be able lose energy at all, and so there could be no temperature drop in the atmosphere at all. But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist, and so energy is being lost that otherwise wouldn’t be. I think internal IR emission is simply passive energy exchange. It doesn’t really do anything…it is just energy being shared back and forth, but, half of the internal IR emission is UWIR – it is not all DWIR – and so the IR energy is net loss, not net gain and not delay, because if the IR didn’t exist at all, THAT would be the best way to delay cooling.

  24. Here’s a 2-D time-plot movie of subsurface, surface, and air temperature at Carl Brehmer’s station:

    You can clearly see that the Sun heats the surface, and everything else is a *response* to that. The temperature at the surface on a few days actually gets to ~75C! Again, that is from *the Sun*. The air is almost always colder than the surface, and at night the subsurface is always warmer than the air…so that tells you what direction the heat-flow is. Equation 18 on pg. 31 of my paper http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf can describe this.

  25. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ulric said:

    “5cm Tmin is nearly always colder than 2 meters Tmin inland, that’s basic meteorology.”

    On the micro scale of course that is true but on the macro scale air descending through a high pressure cell warms as it falls.

    What happens on the micro scale is that when there is little or no insolation the ground cools radiatively and creates a temperature inversion between it and the air higher up but that is a local and temporary phenomenon whereas I am considering the global scenario.

    Even inside the Siberian high pressure cell in winter the descending air warms as height reduces but with a strong inversion as one approaches the actual surface.

    However the actual surface temperature is prevented from going below about -60 C by the warming of the descending air. In the absence of that warming it would have dropped far lower.

    Trick,

    Do you not accept that descending air warms ?

  26. In regard to that 2-D temperature video up one post…forgot to say: What I would like is data going over a whole year or more, going a little bit deeper, say, to 1.5 or 2 meters, and with more points on the atmosphere side, say at 2cm, 5cm, 20 cm, 50cm, 1m, and maybe a couple of points going higher than 1.5m too (up to 3m?). If 5cm is always cooler than 2m as Ulric said, I would really like to see that and how it behaves in real-time.

  27. Trick says:

    Stephen 4:49 pm: “Trick, Do you not accept that descending air warms ?”

    I accept descending, rising or stable air follows P=density*R*T and is diabatic. I accept the compression cannot warm Earth’s surface on the night side in LTE based on 2nd law. I accept the near surface atm. on the night side measurably cools slower due to 1st law heat eqn. from atm. LW emissivity absorbed from daytime solar SW. Elegantly simple, Joe’s 1st law heat equation w/atm. emissivity is enough 1st principle proof consistent with physical measured data.

  28. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joe said:
    “Yes indeed, heat retention from latent heat and the strongest GHG actually causes lower temperatures..”

    It was the absorption of solar NIR that I had in mind.

    “So why not just say that night-time DWIR actually helps cause cooling, rather than delay cooling?”

    Because dry clear nights would then be warmer at the surface.

  29. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said;
    “but that is a local and temporary phenomenon whereas I am considering the global scenario.”

    If it happens in most locations every night, then it is the global scenario….

  30. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ulric said:

    “If it happens in most locations every night, then it is the global scenario…”

    It doesn’t happen every night or even all night let alone all day.

    Clouds prevent it, winds prevent it, hardly ever happens over oceans.

    Not representative of the global scenario at all.

    Trick said:

    “I accept descending, rising or stable air follows P=density*R*T and is diabatic.”

    Then what is adiabatic warming and cooling ?

    I found lots of references to descending air being warmed adiabatically and not just on the day side either.

  31. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joe said:
    “There’s is no delay measurable…but the opposite.”

    Carl’s has already acknowledged that his data (taken at over 4,000 feet with very low humidity) is not the slightest bit representative of most locations.

  32. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    “It doesn’t happen every night or even all night let alone all day.”

    Stephan, you should know when Tmin occurs, and if you go back through each day on the weatheronline links above you’ll see it happen EVERY day.

    “Clouds prevent it..”

    That’s DWIR.

  33. Tim Folkerts says:

    1) Stephen says: “Except that any such gets cancelled by faster non radiative processes.”
    Only if the non-radiative processes are “fast enough” to keep the TOA at the same temperature as the surface!

    2) Your counter-argument is entirely “hand-waving”. You claim all sorts of things about “compressing air” and “three dimensions” and “makes it easier”. I gave specific numbers for energy. Until you can back up your ‘intuition’ with numbers (and counter my numbers with numbers), I put little faith in your logic or your conclusions.

    3) “In that situation the circulation slows down as a result of adding GHGs … “
    So what specific level of GHGs has an effect? If you removed ALL of the GHGs would there be an effect? How about if you removed 99%? How about 50%? How about 1%? What if you added 1%? How about a 1000% increase? Which of these have an effect, and which are simply “cancelled out” by other processes?

    I readily agree that other processes PARTIALLY counteract the cooling by GHG’s, But it takes a very unusual feedback to completely counteract a forcing.

  34. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Stephan, you should know when Tmin occurs, and if you go back through each day on the weatheronline links above you’ll see it happen EVERY day.”

    How long do you think Tmin lasts ?

    As soon as the air starts to stir again the effect starts to dissipate.

    You cannot conflate the local and temporary with a global net effect.

    Clouds operate by suppressing upward radiation from pressure warmed air and NOT by beaming an energy offset back down.

  35. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said:
    “Clouds operate by suppressing upward radiation from pressure warmed air and NOT by beaming an energy offset back down.”

    Clouds suppressing upward radiation from the surface? not possible.

  36. Ulric: “Carl’s has already acknowledged that his data (taken at over 4,000 feet with very low humidity) is not the slightest bit representative of most locations.”

    The GHE isn’t location dependent.

  37. Trick says:

    Joe 4:42 pm: “If DWIR/UWIR/IR didn’t exist at all, the atmosphere wouldn’t be able lose energy at all..”

    I detect some Joe progress in meteorology here, Joe is thinking atm. radiation thru better & better. In the top post heat eqn., Joe statement in my clip above is true since atm. emissivity set =0 in top post flux-in – flux-out 1st law heat eqn. balance; Joe shows Teq.=255K at surface, when an optically thin atm. doesn’t absorb or emit.

    Joe continues: “But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist, and so energy is being lost that otherwise wouldn’t be..”

    With atm. emissivity = 0.8 turned on, the atm. becomes optically thick, the flux-in – flux-out eqn. shows us the effective emitting level for T=255K satellite measured must rise off the surface & due to lapse rate the surface Teq.~Tavg.=288K at LTE. At night, the optically thick atm. below T=255K effective emitting level cools slower than optically thin atm. emissivity = 0 case, the optically thick atm. above T=255K cools faster than optically thin atm. emissivity = 0 case.

    Double check for typo.s….

  38. Trick, emissivity has nothing to do with the GHE. I suppose it is yet another version of the GHE…Right. Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…

    “Joe shows Teq.=255K at surface”

    No, I show Teq = 255 for the whole system, not the surface, given that 240 W/m^2 is the aggregated output. The surface is the warmest part naturally, because that is where the heat is deposited in the first place, plus we have the lapse rate. Low emissivity of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the GHE.

    “With atm. emissivity = 0.8 turned on, the atm. becomes optically thick”

    With emissivity “on”, the atmosphere can emit, which means it can cool. You’re completely backwards from reality. If it couldn’t emit any IR at all, it couldn’t cool at all, and this would be the best way to delay cooling or retain temperature. But you admit it does emit IR, and therefore it cools, and doesn’t delay cooling like it would with e = 0. Observations prove it. Stop denying reality.

    “At night, the optically thick atm. below T=255K effective emitting level cools slower than optically thin atm. emissivity = 0 case, the optically thick atm. above T=255K cools faster than optically thin atm. emissivity = 0 case.”

    That is 100% backwards. Trick doesn’t understand the first thing about what emissivity actually means, and how it is distributed in the atmosphere. Below 255, atmospheric emissivity is higher because the air is more dense. For a gas, emissivity increased with density, therefore emissivity is highest near the surface. This is why surface air can cool so easily, with no measurable delay, compared to if it couldn’t emit at all. Higher than 255, the air is less dense and has lower emissivity, which means it cools less efficiently, and this is why the temperature at altitude is so much more stable than near the surface. IR escapes the atmosphere in a few microseconds…there is no delay. Latent heat traps heat for centuries…there is only one place heat is trapped.

  39. Trick says:

    Stephen 5:55 pm: “Then what is adiabatic warming and cooling ?”

    I detect even Stephen shows signs of progressing to get to ask this question having apparently checked some references. Adiabatic warming/cooling is a useful construct to hold T constant in dz which makes the calculus easier (constants go outside the integral as Stephen will find in the ref.s he checked). This is actually a good assumption in the troposphere, causing only small error to diabatic reality less than say 10-20K degrees out of 300K.

    The much tougher integration with T diabatic has now been performed, obtains a closer exact but not environmental T profile in Earth’s atm. thru the troposphere. The affect on lapse rate is easy to observe, lapse = -g/Cp with T held constant over dz, the dry adiabatic lapse rate.

    For T allowed to vary in dz diabatic with P=density*R*T, find the exact diabatic lapse rate T(P)/To = ((P(z)/Po)^R/Cp.

  40. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joe said:
    “The GHE isn’t location dependent.”

    Water vapour and DWIR are though.

    Any response to this then?

    Joe said:
    “So why not just say that night-time DWIR actually helps cause cooling, rather than delay cooling?”

    Because dry clear nights would then be warmer at the surface.

  41. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    Descending air warms adiabatically and rising air cools adiabatically.

    What goes up when heated by the sun comes down when not heated by the sun and the two quantities are the same averaged globally around the Earth.

    That constant adiabatic exchange is what maintains the energy store in the atmosphere so as to make the surface 33 C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

    That is all there is to it.

  42. Ulric said: “Water vapour and DWIR are [location dependent] though.”

    Great point. And what this shows is that when more water vapour and hence more DWIR are present, lower daytime temperatures and higher nighttime temperatures are observed, and so the only effects are already explained via the specific capacity of the gas. There is no additional radiative effect upon what is already a measurement including the radiative transfer effects in the heat capacity. The GHE should be observable anywhere anyway…there’s lots of CO2 and its necessary DWIR at Carl’s location. It didn’t have an effect…doesn’t mean there was magically no CO2 above Carl’s house.

    “Any response to this then?
    Joe said:
    “So why not just say that night-time DWIR actually helps cause cooling, rather than delay cooling?”
    Because dry clear nights would then be warmer at the surface.”

    Dry clear nights are colder because they have a short time lag constant, and much less latent heat. Even when lots of humidity is present, which delays cooling due to the specific heat capacity and from latent heat, there seems to be no additional delay from anything else. Why would there be? The only source of delay comes from the increased time constant, and from latent heat. There’s no other sources of energy. This has nothing to do with the GHE.

  43. Trick says:

    Joe 6:42 pm: “Trick, emissivity has nothing to do with the GHE.”

    Joe please note in my 6:25 pm post the term GHE is not used.

    Joe continues: “No, I show Teq = 255 for the whole system, not the surface.’’

    The whole system seems to include the atm. which can’t emit/absorb radiation in top post since atm. e=0, the surface T=255K must then radiate direct to space from surface for the planet shown. Since space doesn’t conduct at all, any surface conduction into atm. can’t go to space.

    The system with atm. e=0, reacts to have the effective emitting level at surface Joe. Deal with it. This is explained in detail by meteorology texts. You really made progress at 4:42pm, backslid at 6:42 pm.

    Joe continues: “Below 255, atmospheric emissivity is higher because the air is more dense.”

    Yes, Joe gets this right – a good example of progress! Note with e=0 as in your top post, there is no “below” below T=255 since w/no atm. emissivity it is only the surface that radiates.

    I maintain Joe will get all this yet. Think it thru, re-read your 4:42pm radiation stuff: w/atm. emissivity e = 0, effective emitting level T=255 must be at surface, with atm. e=0.8, atm. below T=255 emissivity is higher b/c the air is more dense & warmer, atm. emissivity above T=255 is lower because the air is less dense & cooler. Joe’s own observation.

  44. Trick: “Joe please note in my 6:25 pm post the term GHE is not used. ”

    So Trick doesn’t believe in the GHE. Trick is making the ultimate progress, explaining all temperature without need for the GHE. I don’t think he requires more progress…at the moment he’s got it! If Trick says surface and air temperatures can be explained via emissivity and no GHE required, then he has my full support to say such things! As he is saying such things. (If he is a he….no matter, I am fine with she. :) )
    At this point, what I’d like to continue to do is look at it all in terms of a real-time differential heat flow equation etc. and real-world observations. See the video at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality/#comment-36698. Thanks to Trick for the contribution on emissivity stuff. He should write a paper about it…we can publish it for him if he likes.

  45. Ulric Lyons says:

    Joseph E Postma says:
    “Even when lots of humidity is present, which delays cooling due to the specific heat capacity and from latent heat, there seems to be no additional delay from anything else. Why would there be?”

    Because of radiative exchange, it’s more obvious with low cloud.

  46. Trick says:

    Joe 7:27 pm: “So Trick doesn’t believe in the GHE.”

    No Joe, calm down, I just proved I believe the term GHE is not needed or even useful, you can stop using it since I still agree w/you where you write: “But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist…”.

    Joe, for the planet in your top post, at what altitude is T = 255K?

    Thanks for the offer to publish but nothing I would write in a paper about DWIR/UWIR/IR would be novel.

  47. Bryan says:

    Trick says

    “Adiabatic warming/cooling is a useful construct to hold T constant in dz which makes the calculus easier (constants go outside the integral as Stephen will find in the ref.s he checked). This is actually a good assumption in the troposphere, causing only small error to diabatic reality less than say 10-20K degrees out of 300K”

    This sentence sums up Tricks back to front world.

    The lapse rate is some kind of useful construct consequent on holding T constant for the purposes of integration.

    Instead the lapse rate is a physical reality.

    Stephen is correct in saying that a descending parcel of air is compressed and its temperature increased.

    Joseph says back up early on that the equations come last and I couldn’t agree more.
    Colleagues who insert equations at the earliest opportunity without regard to their limited applicability I have found are not to be relied on.

    The equations then become a crutch rendering rational thought almost impossible.

  48. Trick: ” I just proved I believe the term GHE is not needed or even useful”

    Great! I am still happy with the result that no GHE is required.

    Trick: “for the planet in your top post, at what altitude is T = 255K?”

    It must partially be set by the albedo, which is found at the cloud tops and not at the surface. It is also set by the average outgoing emission. Perhaps the surface of albedo and the surface of average emission are actually equal, like it is on Venus @70km with the adiabatic gradient determining the temperature distribution below that.

  49. Bryan: “The equations then become a crutch rendering rational thought almost impossible.”

    Kudos!

  50. Trick says:

    Joe 8:08 pm: “Great! I am still happy with the result that no GHE is required.”

    No GHE term required Joe, it is misleading. However as you write, “But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist…” & is still needed in the real world for near surface Tavg. = 288K. I’ll watch to see if you can drop the GHE term as not required for DWIR/UWIR/IR to exist.

    The rest of your answer being vague as usual, but it seems T=255 for planet you are considering in top post is not at surface since Joe writes “But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist…” so the surface must be higher Temp. by the lapse rate with T=255 at altitude. My work above shows how Earth surface Teq. = 288K comes about from 1st principles and measured data. T=255 being at altitude on Earth because as Joe writes “DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist”.

    Bryan 8:08 pm: “The equations then become a crutch rendering rational thought almost impossible.”

    This did not work for me when taking college exams though at times I did attempt this approach as when challenged with “find x”, I simply circled x and wrote an arrow in “Here it is.” And actually got Kudos! from a TA like Joe.

  51. tallbloke says:

    Trick: tell me, did br1’s toy model convince you that surface temp isn’t caused by pressure and insolation after all? Or do you still see the LW radiation flux as symptomatic of surface temp rather than causal, as I do?

    It’s a straight question, so feel free to give me a straight answer. ;)

  52. Trick says:

    tallbloke 9:08 pm – Attempt straight answer in as few words as I can, big picture.

    Mercury w/no atm., day surface temp. caused by net insolation. Nightime surface temp. from radiative cooling to deep space. Big T swings.

    Earth with atm., day near surface temp. ^4 caused by net insolation, surface & atm. emissivity; pressure, T^1 needed from req. hydrostatic equil.*. Earth night time near surface temp. radiative cooling to deep space slowed by atm. DWIR. Smaller T swings.

    *Assumption needed for LTE to get balanced Teq. Straight enough?

    ******

    For extra credit, can reasonably & elegantly get Earth Teq. ~ Tavg. = 288K answer with global surface emissivity = 1.0 and atm. 0.8 & no other flux effect on Earth but not Venus. I am researching the surface emissivity (L&O) to your interest. Have a text on order where I’ve seen the generalized heat balance eqn. including general surface emissivity not just 1.0, might be received by end of week.
    With that, I might be able to include a surface emissivity different than 1.0 for you & achieve more accurate understanding for Earth heat eqn. which is not often discussed. For Venus, accurate surface emissivity might find a closer answer leaving any difference mystery open to debate.

    As I recall, br1 and Ferd Berple were adding more & more realism to sim. w/o finishing up. Seemed the lapse answer got better as they worked. Is that isothermal/non-isothermal lapse debate why you relate to br1/ferd model?

    DWIR (GHE a not required term per Joe discussion), energies or entropies or ideal gas were not harmed in this post.

    Given DWIR exists per Joe in top post, LW symptomatic of surface temp. rather than causal is circular IMO, answer not important to spend discussion for big picture physics. Watch for typo.s.

    [Reply] Thanks Trick, I’ll chew on that overnight.

  53. Carl Brehmer says:

    Ulric Lyons says:

    “Carl’s has already acknowledged that his data (taken at over 4,000 feet with very low humidity) is not the slightest bit representative of most locations.”

    Just for clarity, this is what I actually said:
    “I am not done going through all of the references that you sent but it would appear that nighttime temperature inversions are much more common than I thought. They are just not very common where I live. The terrain also seems to play a part since they seem more common in relatively deep valleys.

    “What I have been looking for, but haven’t yet found is the percentage of the earth’s surface plus the percentage of days per year that nighttime temperature inversions occur, nor have I found a specific humidity level that is required for them to occur. They seem to be both terrain and humidity dependent and more common along the coasts of oceans, seas and lakes where there is lots of ground water.

    “That having been said the mechanisms involved with nighttime temperature inversions, even as described in the Penn State article, are quite different that those attributed to a “greenhouse gas” mediated ‘greenhouse effect.'”

    So, what I acknowledged is that I don’t know what percentage of the earth’s surface what percent of the time experiences nighttime temperature inversions, which seem to be universally caused the a low altitude release of nighttime latent heat energy, since the iconic study of nighttime temperature inversions that appears in (Geiger 1950) “The Climate Near The Ground” was done “in the neighborhood of Grötöy”–an island on the coast of the Norwegian Sea–and mentions that a 3 meter thick layer of fog was present during the study.

    This conversation takes place within the greater context of whether or not the delay seen in nighttime cooling in humid climates is due to the entrapment of IR radiation by water vapor, as postulated by John Tyndall, or whether it is due to other processes. Almost universally the delays in nighttime cooling seen in humid climates requires the presence of water in liquid form, either as abundant ground moisture, clouds or fog. Why people confound the thermal properties of liquid water and gaseous water is beyond me; once water vapor condenses it ceases being a “greenhouse gas” and we transition into observing the thermal affect that the presence of liquid water has on the temperature. From my perspective the contribution that my data makes to the conversation is that it demonstrates that in the absence of sufficient liquid water nighttime temperature inversions are a rarity.

    Carl

  54. Konrad says:

    Bryan says:
    November 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    “The equations then become a crutch rendering rational thought almost impossible”

    ————————–
    Well said. The equations being discussed here in no way describe the energy flows between the surface and atmosphere on our planet. Therefore any debate involving the use of such equations cannot answer any questions about the AGW hypothesis.

    The fact that the main energy flows to and from the earth are radiative has lead to the false assumption that equations based solely on radiation can solve the question of what happens when more radiative gasses are added to the atmosphere. This assumption is entirely wrong. If you do not include conduction, convection and gravity in atmospheric modelling, you will always get the wrong answer.

    Our atmosphere is primarily heated by conductive contact with the surface and by the release of latent heat during the condensation of water vapour. Our atmosphere is primarily cooled by IR radiation to space. To understand why AGW is impossible you only need to consider what would happen to atmospheric temperatures if the gasses in our atmosphere could not cool by radiation to space.

    My challenge to the AGW believers here is – Explain how Earth’s atmosphere would not boil in the absence of radiative gasses.

  55. Trick says:

    Konrad 1:53 am: : “…any debate involving the use of such equations cannot answer any questions about the AGW hypothesis.”

    I view AGW that way too, this thread is on DWIR though (Joe’s new term since misleading GHE term not required now), only need the big picture for effect of DWIR since conduction to deep space is not possible.

  56. tjfolkerts says:

    Well, joe, I have to hand it to you .. you found the one mistake i made, so let me fix it

    The equator receives an average of ~ 610 W/m^2 at the equator for 12 hr.
    The equator e̶m̶i̶t̶s̶ receives an average of ~ (610/2) = ~ 305 W/m^2 at the equator for 24 hr.

    Somehow I switched the verb there. In context, it might have been possible to figure out that I was dividing the previous line by 2, and that I meant “receives” again, but it these discussions it is important to state things clearly and exactly.

    And even so, the second line is not FAR from the correct physics. If the equator is RECEIVING 305 W/m^2 on average, then it cannot emit more than 305 W/m^2 on average or it would be in a long-temr cooling cycle (or it would be violating conservation of energy).

    The the rest – – I stand by.

    Maybe I can get Tallbloke to let me write a top-post rebuttal so we can focus and exactly what I think is wrong with your work (violations of conservation of energy and incorrect integrations are two of the biggest). it would be much more efficient to “start fresh” with what I think it right than to try looking for everything I think is wrong.

    [Reply] By all means submit a rebuttal Tim. You have my email address.

  57. Stephen Wilde says:

    “My challenge to the AGW believers here is – Explain how Earth’s atmosphere would not boil in the absence of radiative gasses.”

    A good challenge and considering it leads to an answer which debunks AGW theory.

    To avoid boiling the atmosphere away energy must be transferred back to the surface somehow and then be radiated to space.

    A non GHG atmosphere cannot radiate energy to the surface.

    The process must be via conversion of kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy on the day side which is then circulated to the night side and returned to the surface in descending air where the gpe is converted back to kinetic energy at the surface from where it can be radiated out to space.

    A non radiative solution.

  58. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:46 am, Konrad 1:53 am: “A good challenge…”

    Konrad’s challenge using energy balance eqn.s based on 1st law makes it a bit easier to answer w/science. The normal Earth global atm. emissivity being at 0.8, removing the infrared-active gases would reduce the atm. emissivity but not to zero as all matter > 0K emits IR and the massive 99% O2,N2 would still radiate IR to surface and to space from a new effective emitting level. From eqn. in top post w/emissivity = 0.8:

    1370 * 0.7 – 4*sigma*(1-0.8/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289K

    Pick any percentage to reduce atm. emissivity w/o infrared-active gas, say pick 20%, completely random to 0.64 (there must be better science numbers):

    1370 * 0.7 – 4*sigma*(1-0.64/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 281K

    Here the DWIR is reduced which allows the surface to cool faster at night.

    I have to ask Stephen also why removing infrared-active gas doesn’t have the opposite effect to adding them you mentioned 11/23 12:50 pm above (and similar elsewhere) clipped here for ref. if the system has 0 feedback response?

    “So if more GHGs or anything else try to alter the amount of energy retained by the atmosphere then the change in equator to pole gradient will speed up the energy throughput.”

    If adding emissivity by infrared-active gas to atm. results in changing fluxes to keep Tavg=288K at surface, why does subtracting them not result in changing fluxes to keep Tavg=288K at surface?

  59. Tim: “Maybe I can get Tallbloke to let me write a top-post rebuttal so we can focus and exactly what I think is wrong with your work (violations of conservation of energy and incorrect integrations are two of the biggest). it would be much more efficient to “start fresh” with what I think it right than to try looking for everything I think is wrong.”

    Oh lord that would be the worst idea ever. You don’t understand the first darned thing about what I’m doing and your criticisms are pure sophistry. You’ve already been rebutted on here one or two dozen times.
    What my diagram shows is the ACTUAL distribution of sunlight over a hemisphere, how it actually comes in in reality. That is REAL.
    I have stated time and time again that the value of +49C comes out of the INTEGRATED AVERAGE value of the projection factor of the insolation. It is NOT an average for the whole hemisphere. Of course you don’t understand that either because you can’t, because you have no familiarity with math, numbers, or logic whatsoever, or because you’re doing it on purpose to twist the whole analysis away from reality, so that you can sophize about it.
    The diagram shows just how HOT sunshine actually is, over a very large margin of the hemisphere, and that it is distributed as the cosine function (do I really need to SHOW the cosine function on the diagram?). Real world data proves that the sunshine heats the surface to very high temperatures…in the video link up above, the surface gets to +75C(!!!) from sunshine alone! And my diagram and my math explains exactly how, why, when, and in real time, that this happens.

    Tim’s criticisms are just making up irrelevant and useless garbage that don’t even have anything to do with what I did, and making claims of things he thinks I did that are false. He either doesn’t have the intelligence to understand what he’s doing, or he’s doing it on purpose to create obfuscation and create the appearance that he has an actual criticism.

    To start afresh with Tim’s BS would be to just repeat the above and what has been in this thread over and over and over again…and Tim would still never understand any of the basic mathematical concepts presented.
    The model diagram shows how sunlight ACTUALLY is distributed on the hemisphere it enters…this is a fact.
    Check figure 8 from my paper:

    My model diagram, and its associated math, calculated PERFECTLY the real-time insolation from the Sun…aside from measurement noise, the model calculated the real-time insolation *exactly*. From that I was able to calculate the expected maximum temperature generation upon the surface, and that was also almost *exactly* as observed. The model obviously works. The cosine function is real.

    Tim: “violations of conservation of energy and incorrect integrations are two of the biggest”

    You haven’t a clue as to what the purpose of the model diagram is and how it is supposed to be understood and used. It doesn’t matter if YOU misunderstand it because you don’t understand math, numbers, integral and differential calculus, etc. It just shows you’re either incompetent or you’re a sophist. There is a WAY to understand what the diagram is for, how it is to be used, what it is used to demonstrate, etc., and it frankly doesn’t matter if you refuse to understand it and make up FALSE interpretations of it. Real-world data has ALREADY vindicated and proven the usage of the model….it has already demonstrated its veracity! Real world data matched EXACTLY the predictions of the model! That is having achieved quite a bit for doing this in my spare time. And I discussed how to still make it even better.

    I just have to come to terms with this world and people in it being completely and irredeemably and utterly insane. I just need to learn that, learn to love it, and learn how to live with it. What passes for rational thought on this planet is disgusting…I can’t wait until I don’t have to deal with this sort of idiocy anymore… Why are people so damned disgusting? Why do they insist upon and LOVE engaging in sophist bullS, instead of just acknowledging that sunshine is hot, and that it is distributed as per the cosine function, and that data actually proves it, and that you can make model diagrams to show it? I mean it’s like you can have two pieces of black paper, but some insane person will insist one of them is white.

    No better yet, it much more like arguing that 2+2 = 4, rather than 2+2=5. That’s what I’m facing. I have to understand that there is no hope in arguing against 2+2=5…that’s not an argument you can win, because to argue about it in the first place is to abandon rationality in totality. You see that to argue what I am even arguing, that sunshine is hot and distributed as a cosine function, puts me into a world of insanity?

    2+2=4, but you can’t actually prove it to Dionysus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Am I having a mental breakdown right now? No :) lol…/epic rant

  60. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    I am aware of the apparent inconsistency that you have highlighted but I have dealt with it in one of the other threads here.

    I am currently uncertain whether adding GHGs facilitates loss of energy to space or slows down loss of energy to space. The net effect might even be zero. There are good arguments for each proposition.

    However, whatever GHGs do will be met with a negative system response.

    If they facilitate energy loss then the air circulation will be less vigorous because there will be less energy to fuel it.

    If they cause energy retention then the air circulation will be more vigorous because there will be more energy to fuel it.

    So, as I said in another post it doesn’t really matter what effect GHGs actually have. The effect will still be eliminated by a change in air circulation.

    That principle applies equally to ANY changes in atmospheric composition in so far as total atmospheric mass is not affected.

  61. Trick says:

    Fair enough answer Stephen. This thread being on GHE, suppose further discussion is better on the new thread tb mentioned which may follow from Tim F. esp. if it allows more to the circulation discussion.

    Tim F – Hint.

  62. Ulric Lyons says:

    Carl Brehmer said:
    “Almost universally the delays in nighttime cooling seen in humid climates requires the presence of water in liquid form, either as abundant ground moisture, clouds or fog.”

    Water vapour alone will do it. It would have to be there otherwise it would not be a humid climate, and there are plenty of situations where it will not condense into fog overnight.

    Carl said:
    “From my perspective the contribution that my data makes to the conversation is that it demonstrates that in the absence of sufficient liquid water nighttime temperature inversions are a rarity.”

    According to your data at your location (?), while across somewhere as large as Europe, we see ground temperature colder than 2 meter temperature virtually every night. And the difference between the two temperatures will be *larger* if it is dryer.

  63. Tim Folkerts says:

    Joe says: “My model diagram, and its associated math, calculated PERFECTLY the real-time insolation from the Sun…aside from measurement noise, the model calculated the real-time insolation *exactly*. From that I was able to calculate the expected maximum temperature generation upon the surface, and that was also almost *exactly* as observed. The model obviously works. The cosine function is real.” [italic closed by moderator here]

    That much I (mostly) agree with .. your numbers for insolation (at the “equator” anyway) are calculated perfectly. You can calculate the maximum daytime temperatures on the sunny side pretty well. But the “conservation of energy” part comes in to play at night. The “input temperature” is then -270 C. You simply can’t collect enough energy during the day to warm the surface to typical temperatures AND to store energy for the long cold night.

    * If the ground warms to the “input temperature” then it is storing ZERO energy. It will cool just as rapidly as it warmed, reaching -270 as the sun sets.
    * if the ground remains around -2 C, then you can store enough excess energy to stay at -2 C over night.

  64. “The “input temperature” is then -270 C. You simply can’t collect enough energy during the day to warm the surface to typical temperatures AND to store energy for the long cold night. ”

    But this is exactly what happens. Isn’t the only source of input, the Sun?! The atmosphere isn’t an additional input source, so, obviously, enough energy HAS been stored in the system (over years and years) to keep itself warm at night. The input isn’t -270C at night…there is no input at all. There is no reason that the absorbed energy needs to be emitted instantly, or, shed in the same period as it was absorbed. It takes MUCH longer to cool down than it does to heat up…this comes out of the differential equations and it is seen in any observed system. The system spends more time emitting less energy than it does emitting higher energy – so averaged over time it will look like a higher temperature, but, the energy lost is equal to that which came in, and won’t be any more than it holds in the first place. The atmosphere isn’t providing new or more energy for the system. The system is already holding a mother load of energy…the daily insolation is a small, *tiny* oscillation on top of the internally stored energy. There is about *122 days* of stored solar energy inside a column of atmosphere…the daily variation in total energy is thus only ~1%. Thus there is plenty of energy, stored from eons of insolation, to keep the system warm overnight.

    “* If the ground warms to the “input temperature” then it is storing ZERO energy. It will cool just as rapidly as it warmed, reaching -270 as the sun sets.”

    That is simply false. Temperature *IS* stored energy. It is not like this system is an actual blackbody with no heat storage. If something has a temperature, that *IS* energy it is holding and storing. It generally takes longer to shed the energy than it does to gain it. Temperature does *not* drop as fast as it heats up. Look at the video above: the surface temperature max is reaching the same as the input temperature, but the subsurface temperature is increasing too, hence storing energy since it isn’t radiated directly away. You also have the natural response of convection upon the surface which is energy storage, energy being stored in the weather generated from the high-temp insolation, in the latent heat of water that has been created, etc. Of course we know this: the ZEB Plot shows energy IS going missing around the equators, even though the surface temperature *does* get as high as the input. Where is the missing energy? The missing energy *is* the climate, weather, evaporation, convection, etc., itself. It is in these things that energy is being absorbed, stored, and circulated. That’s why it doesn’t show up as radiation. There is sensible transfer occurring, not just radiative, and the sensible transfer is obviously huge…it generates 12km thunderheads and hurricanes(!).

    “* if the ground remains around -2 C, then you can store enough excess energy to stay at -2 C over night.”

    It is not all as simple as a radiative input and output equated at all times. The ZEB Plot *shows* that energy is going missing around the equator. More comes in than actually comes out. Thus there is energy left over for night time, and the poles. The day-side does not actually achieve +49C or +30C (whichever way you want to do the average), yet it *did* absorb enough energy to do so. Actually I don’t know what the day-side average is since that data doesn’t seem to be available. So then, where is that energy? That energy is the weather, the climate, the clouds, the air temperature etc.

  65. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “You simply can’t collect enough energy during the day to warm the surface to typical temperatures AND to store energy for the long cold night.”

    Tell that to the oceans.

  66. wayne says:

    ““You simply can’t collect enough energy during the day to warm the surface to typical temperatures AND to store energy for the long cold night.”

    But Tim, you do not need an increase in temperature to store solar energy on the day side, the atmosphere just has to expand to higher altitudes and that is exactly what it does, day in and day out. When it drops during the night the same temperature is maintained.

    Now how much is stored in this manner, I don’t know but it is sizable besides what is also conducted into the soil, rock, and oceans at the surface that is not expresses as surface temperature.

  67. suricat says:

    Tim Folkerts says: November 28, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    “That much I (mostly) agree with .. your numbers for insolation (at the “equator” anyway) are calculated perfectly. You can calculate the maximum daytime temperatures on the sunny side pretty well. But the “conservation of energy” part comes in to play at night. The “input temperature” is then -270 C. You simply can’t collect enough energy during the day to warm the surface to typical temperatures AND to store energy for the long cold night.

    * If the ground warms to the “input temperature” then it is storing ZERO energy. It will cool just as rapidly as it warmed, reaching -270 as the sun sets.
    * if the ground remains around -2 C, then you can store enough excess energy to stay at -2 C over night.”

    That’s ‘pap’! “-270″ (degrees Celsius) is ~’the microwave background radiation level for the empty space of the universe’ and is an ‘impossible scenario’ for the ‘final temp elevation’ to a planet at ‘sunset’ (following half a ‘day’s’ insolation).

    However, the ‘start’ and ‘end’ points denote equilibrium. It’s just a shame that you can’t contemplate the ‘start’ and ‘end’ points elevated to ~288 C instead of “-270″. :(

    GUYS! I’m ‘amazed’ (no I’m not) that this thread has descended into ‘chaos’ (this always seems to happen when GHE is open for discussion). However, as ‘back radiation’ seems to be the ‘main stay’ of this hypothesis, perhaps it would be better to ‘dissect/discuss’ that ‘back radiation’?

    My understanding of ‘back radiation’ is that it plays a small role in the ‘microscopic’ mechanics of the ‘conductive properties of gasses’. On a ‘microscopic scale’, the ‘conductive property’ of a gas is disclosed by its ‘degree of freedom’ within the environment that it is presented with. Constraints to the ‘freedom’ of the gas are imposed by its ‘environment’ (yes, that’s just an affirmation of the previous remark). Thus, the potency of ‘back radiation’ alters with its ‘degree of freedom’ within the scenario that it’s presented! Just ‘what “is” back radiation’? Let’s analyse this!

    Put thoughts of ‘convection’, or ‘advection’, away. This is solely about ‘conduction’!

    ‘Conduction’ (energy transport) through a gas is ‘difficult’ and can only be achieved via two attractors, ‘collisional’ energy transfer by kinetic collision of molecules that are present within the gas, or IR irradiation that the energy of the molecule passes to the local ‘EM’ (electromagnetic) field due to its ‘energetic state’. Our ‘interest’ is only for the latter, the ‘former’ (‘kinetic collision’) is only of interest for a ‘closed system’ (such as Earth’s reaction to the ‘open system’ of EM irradiation by ‘insolation’).

    It’s ‘way’ past my bed time and this computer keeps prompting me to shut down to allow updates, but I’ll continue later. :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  68. Tim Folkerts says:

    TIM SAYS>> “* If the ground warms to the “input temperature” then it is storing ZERO energy. It will cool just as rapidly as it warmed, reaching -270 as the sun sets.”

    JOE REPLIES> That is simply false.

    When the the temperature of the ground equals the “input temperature” then the ground is radiating exactly as much energy as it is receiving. That is how you calculated your “input temperature — from the SB law. As a specific example, if a patch is absorbing
    F⊙(1-alpha)(0.637) = 610 W/m
    and has a temperature of 49 C, it will emit
    P/A = (sigma)(49+273)^4 = 610 W/m^2

    Hmmm … so
    1) the ground is at the “input temperature” of 49 C
    2) it is absorbing a net power of 610 W/m^2 – 610 W/m^2 = 0
    just like I said (the ground warmed to the input temperature, and it is then storing ZERO energy)

    I guess “simply false” means “true” in Joe’s world.

    For those who care to understand, this is the case where the heat capacity –> 0. With a small heat capacity, the surface doesn’t need to absorb much energy to closely follow the “input temperature”. So very little energy is ever absorbed, so very little energy is stored to be emitted at night.

    In the oppose case, where the heat capacity –> ∞, then the temperature doesn’t change much at all, simply absorbing or releasing energy without changing temperature. In this case, with an average of 610 W/m^2 being input for 12 hr, it can radiate a nearly constant 305 W/m^2 for 24 hr (which conserved energy), corresponding to a temperature of -2 C.

  69. Stephen Wilde says:

    A lot of the questions raised by the last few posts could be dealt with by the concept of gravitational potential energy being returned to the surface as kinetic energy beneath descending air masses.

    The point from Ulric about near surface temperature inversions is a red herring because the warmed descending air above the inversion will mitigate the rate of cooling below the inversion and therefore still contribute to the temperature of the surface.

    If one slots that into the various narratives it pretty much squares the circle.

  70. Ulric Lyons says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    “The point from Ulric about near surface temperature inversions is a red herring because the warmed descending air above the inversion will mitigate the rate of cooling below the inversion and therefore still contribute to the temperature of the surface.”

    Your “no DWIR needed” is the red herring. So why is your warmed air above the inversion descending? Because the air below is cooling and contracting? so what, it’s not contracting because it’s getting squashed more! it’s contracting because it is loosing energy.

  71. Stephen Wilde says:

    “So why is your warmed air above the inversion descending?”

    Because it was forced up wherever sunlight or warm ocean surfaces caused air to rise.

    Do you deny that the air in high pressure cells is descending as a result of the air in low pressure cells having previously risen?

    The air descending through a high pressure cell is indeed being squashed as it descends.

  72. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Wilde

    What you are suggesting with the inversion example, is that air that is contracting due it’s own cooling, is somehow also warmed by that said contraction as if by compression. There can be no exchange between the air above and below the inversion, else there would be no inversion.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    The air above the inversion is being warmed by compression.

    The air below the inversion is being cooled by the ground which then conductively cools the air in contact with it.

    There can then be a conductive exchange between the cold lower layer and the warmer upper layer which effectively limits how cold the lower layer can get.

    The shallower the lower layer the more effectively can conduction from above limit its cooling.

    A parcel of air can contract either by cooling or compression.

    If it is by compression it gets warmer.

    At ground level under an inversion the cooling effect of contact with the ground exceeds the warming of compression.

    The stronger the cooling effect of contact with the ground relative to the compression effect the higher the inversion will rise.

  74. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said:
    “The air above the inversion is being warmed by compression.”

    So as to raise its temperature?
    Why do you think it is being compressed?

    “There can then be a conductive exchange between the cold lower layer and the warmer upper layer which effectively limits how cold the lower layer can get.”

    But not that effective else there would be no inversion. Ground temp can be 6C below 2 meter temp on those clear dry still nights.

  75. “Hmmm … so
    1) the ground is at the “input temperature” of 49 C
    2) it is absorbing a net power of 610 W/m^2 – 610 W/m^2 = 0
    just like I said (the ground warmed to the input temperature, and it is then storing ZERO energy)”

    That is a gross oversimplification of the model.

    “For those who care to understand, this is the case where the heat capacity –> 0. With a small heat capacity, the surface doesn’t need to absorb much energy to closely follow the “input temperature”. So very little energy is ever absorbed, so very little energy is stored to be emitted at night.
    In the oppose case, where the heat capacity –> ∞, then the temperature doesn’t change much at all, simply absorbing or releasing energy without changing temperature. In this case, with an average of 610 W/m^2 being input for 12 hr, it can radiate a nearly constant 305 W/m^2 for 24 hr (which conserved energy), corresponding to a temperature of -2 C.”

    The heat capacity is obviously in between 0 and infinity…lol. Did you still not look at the video?

    The mass is very small at the very surface in which insolation gets absorbed – only a few millimetres deep and all the insolation is absorbed. That is why it reaches the same temperature as the insolation. To you, this means that there is hardly any energy coming in, or, there is no heat storage. No! It means the FULL amount of energy is coming in, and there’s enough that keeps pumping in via conduction down into the surface which also increases the subsurface temperature. So, energy IS obviously being absorbed into the subsurface and not escaping right away.

    There’s no other sources of heat for the whole system. Obviously, enough solar energy IS being absorbed to keep the whole system warm, or else it wouldn’t be warm, As stated, there is about 120 days’ worth of solar energy stored in the atmospheric column, and, about the same amount stored in only a few meters deep of soil. The daily variation in energy is a tiny 1% or less.

  76. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ulric.

    I don’t think you understand what is meant by ‘warmed by compression’ in this context.

    You seem to think it means a static parcel of air being squeezed but that is not the case.

    As a parcel of air descends the molecules move closer together, potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy and the molecules warm up.

    The nearer the ground they get the warmer they get.

    It is a conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and it goes on globally.

    Until the conversion to kinetic energy the potential energy is invisible to radiative physics but it is still there all the time.

    Unless you grip the fundamentals you won’t get what I am saying.

  77. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:21 pm: “As a parcel of air descends the molecules move closer together, potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy and the molecules warm up. The nearer the ground they get the warmer they get.”

    Hard to remember all Stephen’s stories. Wasn’t there a Stephen story where the descending parcel has an equal and opposite parcel moving up? So no NET warming…anywhere from KE+PE =const.?

    The parcel obeys P=density*R*T and as parcel T moves higher than env. lapse rate allows the parcel just bobs right back up and cools appropriately. If goes up past env. lapse rate, parcel cools until diabatic equilibrium T with surroundings.

    Radiation (SW+LW) is indeed needed for surface Tavg. LTE. Stories with a grip on fundamental law means don’t need to keep track of all stories.

  78. Max™‮‮ says:

    Uh… Tim?

    681 W/m^2 reaching a surface with a .3 albedo would give a temperature of 302 K.

    A surface at 302 K with .7 emissivity would emit 334 W/m^2, NOT 681 W/m^2.

    Why are you treating the output as the input?

    If you do something as nonsensical as that, then seeing 334 W/m^2 coming out you would assume the input was the same and could only give a temperature of 276 K.

    Then you would calculate the result of the albedo to get an “effective black body temperature” of 253 K.

    The output is not the input.

  79. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said:
    “You seem to think it means a static parcel of air being squeezed but that is not the case.”

    Inversions have to be pretty static.

    “As a parcel of air descends the molecules move closer together, potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy and the molecules warm up.”

    What you are describing is a daytime circulation phenomena.

    “Unless you grip the fundamentals you won’t get what I am saying.”

    If you had the fundamentals you wouldn’t come out with such ideas in the first place.

  80. Stephen Wilde says:

    “What you are describing is a daytime circulation phenomena.”

    No.

    A global circulation pattern between equator and poles, night side and day side involving every component of the global atmospheric circulation.

  81. Ulric Lyons says:

    Wilde said:
    “A global circulation pattern between equator and poles”

    Ah towards the poles, where the strongest inversions on the planet are.

  82. Kristian says:

    I had a look at the ERA Interim Reanalysis data (of the ECMWF) on the KNMI Climate Explorer
    regarding the four surface energy fluxes (net downward shortwave radiation (pos.), net outgoing longwave radiation (neg.), latent heat transfer (neg.) and sensible heat transfer (neg.)) from 1979 to 2012. And got some very interesting results. It turns out that of the three negative fluxes (regulating the rate and magnitude of heat loss from the surface) only the change in latent heat transfer really matters. Also, they’ve all grown more negative (more efficient in ridding the surface of heat, that is) globally during the modern warming. As one would expect.

    Furthermore, the ERA 40 and NCAR/NCEP reanalyses indicate that global latent heat transfer for some reason was much more effective during the period before 1970-75. Hence a gradual net loss of global energy content back then. We’ve seen the opposite during the last 30-35 years, though at a slowing rate.

    The key is in the latent heat transfer. Not (at all) in surface radiation.

    Here is net global surface solar radiation (SSR) from 1979 to 2012 (ERA Interim Reanalysis of the ECMWF – data downloaded from KNMI Climate Explorer):

    Here are the other net global surface energy fluxes – sensible heat (green), thermal radiation (STR) (red) and latent heat (blue):

    Subtracting the sum of the three outgoing net fluxes from the incoming net solar flux gives this net surface energy balance curve for the Earth as a whole from 1979 to 2012:

    Robustly positive all along, yet still trending unmistakably downward and now finally getting pretty close to perfect balance – maybe withing 3-5 years we’re there, crossing the line … The mean imbalance between incoming and outgoing (1979-2012) is +7,22 W/m^2 (which sounds like a lot).

    This is still according to the ECMWF of course.

    Just out of curiosity I made a running total on the data behind the plot above. It came out like this:

    So the funny thing is, even though all of Earth’s net surface heat loss fluxes has steadily increased in strength/efficiency (becoming more negative) since 1979 (sensible heat by ~0.8 W/m^2, STR by 0.8-1 W/m^2 and latent heat by ~6 W/m^2, to a total of 7.6 – 7.8 W/m^2) and with the mean net solar input to the Earth system today pretty much equal to what it was in 1979, Earth has been accumulating a LOT of energy/heat. The global solar input has simply been larger the last 33-34 years than the output from Earth’s surface, the heat loss processes working hard to catch up. And that’s the funny bit. According to AGW theory, what would cause the energy imbalance is a DEcreasing of the total net upward heat flux from the surface. For instance, in a theoretical steady state, with solar IN (considered static) exactly balanced by IR+latent+sensible OUT, more GHGs would indirectly lessen the total heat flux from the surface, making it less negative (more positive) which would then create the observed positive imbalance. But this theoretical course of events is quite the opposite of what apparently actually happens in the real world. Here the IR flux, the sensible heat flux and the latent heat flux are all increasing as a function of surface temperature. Or should we say, as a function of the increasing difference/divergence between the surface temperature and that of the air layer directly above it. If the standard AGW hypothesis were right, the lapse rate should lift the mean temperature level off the ground with increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. That is to say, the incremental same-temperature levels would be situated gradually higher from the tropospheric mean emission height on down to the surface. This means that in the end, the layer of air just above the ground/sea would warm independently of the surface (a tiny bit) and would thereby in a snapshot reduce the temperature difference between the air and the surface, reducing the total net heat flux from the ground/sea. For this to be the case, though, the temperature gap between the surface and the air layer adjacent to it must either be observed to DEcrease or to remain stable (they both warm in step). If this gap were rather observed to INcrease, this whole construct would crumble. Then the surface cannot be the follower. Then the surface is the driver. Which is what all common sense is telling us is the case. Look at these two graphs:

    This is ICOADS SST vs. ICOADS Tair. The first graph covers a large chunk of the Pacific Ocean (30N-40S, 150E-100W). The second a significant part of the North Atlantic (62N-0, 60-15W). Watch how the SST trends are distinctively steeper than the Tair trends in both diagrams. How would an air layer colder than the surface and at the same time with a lower warming rate force the warming of the surface? It couldn’t. And it doesn’t. And it agrees with the ERA Interim Reanalysis data.

    Finally, I did the same operation for the tropical Pacific fluxes as I did for the global ones. Here is the result, directly compared to the global (tropical Pacific (24N-24S, 120E-80W) (black), global (red)). From top to bottom – solar, sensible, IR and latent. Watch how much more positive the solar is in the Pacific and accordingly how much more negative the latent heat flux is. For the other two fluxes the difference seems inconsequential:

  83. Stephen Wilde says:

    Kristian.

    Useful data.

    Suggests that any warming was due to less clouds and more solar input rather than downward IR from more GHGs.

    Pretty much as previously suggested in threads here.

  84. Tim Folkerts says:

    Max asks

    Uh… Tim?
    681 W/m^2 reaching a surface with a .3 albedo would give a temperature of 302 K.
    A surface at 302 K with .7 emissivity would emit 334 W/m^2, NOT 681 W/m^2.
    Why are you treating the output as the input?

    Max, I am really not sure what you are objecting to. I agree that 681 W/m^2 hitting a surface with albedo = 0.3 and emissivity = 1.0 would give a temperature of ~ 302 K. But there is no previous reference in this thread to “681” or “302” so I can find no connection between your objection and my comments.

    I also have no quarrel with a surface at 302 K and emissivity = 0.7 emitting ~ 334 W/m^2. But again, I don’t see where that connects to anything I said.

    PS
    One mistake you seem to be making is to assume albedo and emissivity are related. Albedo deals with absorption and reflection of SUNLIGHT (and often refers specifically to visible sunlight). Emissivity, on the other hand, related to the absorption and reflection of thermal IR (wavelengths greater than ~ 4 um). There is no reason that emissivity should be (1-albedo). (In the same way, there is no reason that a paint that reflect 30% of blue light needs to absorb 70% of red light).

    Albedo = 0.3 –> 30% of sunlight is reflected and 70% absorbed
    Emissivity = 0.95–> 5% of thermal IR is reflected and 95% is absorbed.

    There is NO reason that albedo = 0.3 would imply emissivity = 0.7. In fact, most of the the earth (water and ice) has an emissivity very close to 1.0, and the overall values is perhaps 0.95.

  85. Tim Folkerts says:

    Joe says:
    “There’s no other sources of heat for the whole system.”
    Right.

    Obviously, enough solar energy IS being absorbed to keep the whole system warm, or else it wouldn’t be warm, …”
    Mostly right. The “whole system” = the “effective radiating surface” is heated to ~ 255 K by the sun. But the “effective radiating surface” is kilometers high in the atmosphere BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE HAS GHGs. Without GHGs the “effective radiating surface” would be the physical surface, in which the there would still be enough solar energy to warm the “effective radiating surface” to ~ 255 K.

    But there is NOT enough solar energy to keep the SURFACE at 288 K without GHGs in the atmosphere.

    “As stated, there is about 120 days’ worth of solar energy stored in the atmospheric column, and, about the same amount stored in only a few meters deep of soil.
    This is still irrelevant. As you so eloquently stated a few sentences earlier, “There’s no other sources of heat for the whole system.”

    Stored energy can DELAY temperature changes, but cannot provide energy (for more than a hundred days or so) to keep anything warm! Or do you take back your line about “no other sources of energy” and if so, what energy source do you postulate that provides energy to the atmosphere and/or subsoil that they can then pass along to the surface?

  86. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “But there is NOT enough solar energy to keep the SURFACE at 288 K without GHGs in the atmosphere.”

    I don’t get that. Without GHG’s, the albedo reduces to ~4% surface reflection, and a whole load of solar NIR would make it to the SURFACE, rather than being absorbed by water vapour and co2.

  87. Stephen Wilde says:

    “But the “effective radiating surface” is kilometers high in the atmosphere BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE HAS GHGs”

    Substitute MASS for GHGs

  88. Tim Folkerts says:

    Ulric:

    1) Even with an albedo of 0, the total energy absorbed during 24 hours (1370 W/m^2 * 86,400 s * pi * R(earth)^2) would still only be enough to raise the average temperature to ~ 6 C (compared to ~ -18C for an albedo of 0.3). This is still way below the observed ~ 288 K = ~ 15 C surface temperature. GHGs would STILL be needed to raise the effective radiating surface above the ground level, so that the GHGs would be radiating at a temperature BELOW the effective surface temperature, so the ground could radiate ABOVE the effective surface temperature.

    2) Offering “what if” scenarios is always a challenge, because you have to decide what you are changing and what you are keeping the same. In principle you could change GHGs and albedo and emissivity independently. In practice they are interconnected and it is not obvious what secondary results there would be. Getting rid of CO2 might lower the temperature and freeze more water, resulting in MORE reflection (but also a higher emissivity). Getting rid of H20 would remove all the ice as well, resulting in LESS reflection (and a lower emissivity).

    I am saying “We know experimentally that the albedo is ~ 0.3. How can we reconcile that fact with the fact that the surface temperature is ~ 288 K rather than ~ 255 K”. This is the same as what Joe was trying to do in the top post where he assumed (1-alpha) = 70% of the sunlight was absorbed.

    Go ahead, Ulric, and calculate the effective black body surface temperature for albedos of 0.3 and 0.04 and 0.00. See if you can get the values as high as 288 K with only sunlight and no GHGs. The best way to “get it” is to try the calculations for yourself!

  89. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen suggests “Substitute MASS for GHGs”

    No thank you. :-)

    Thermal radiation has to come from things that thermally radiate. The bulk of the mass (N2 & O2) does not radiate (significant amounts of) thermal IR. Only with GHGs mixed in with the N2 & O2 will you get the thermal radiation.

    Now, I will grant you that the total moles of gas in the atmosphere (and thus the total mass) do play an important role. With no N2 & O2 to “dilute” the CO2, the CO2 would form a layer much closer to the surface. There are many ways to argue it, but the “TOA” in this scenario would be much closer physically to the surface and much warmer than the current TOA.

    We could end up with something like:

    CURRENT:
    255 K = effective BB temperature
    288 K = average surface temperature
    215 K = average TOA temperature

    NO N2 or O2:
    255 K = effective BB temperature
    260 K = average surface temperature
    250 K = average TOA temperature

    But with no GHG, the results would be
    255 K = effective BB temperature
    255 K = average surface temperature
    255 K = average TOA temperature
    for any mass of pure N2/O2.

  90. Max™‮‮ says:

    Before factoring albedo, the day side has ~2.55×10^14 square meters of surface area, and averaging 680 W/m^2 over that gives 1.734×10^17 Joules absorbed in one second across the day side, after factoring in albedo I recall the value being closer to 1.22×10^17 W.

    Incorrectly averaging that across the entire surface gives an unrealistically low energy input which results in your unrealistically low values.

    The actual dayside input is enough to get the surface to an average of 302 K after albedo.

    To average 255 K the nightside would have to be closer to 200 K.

    On the other hand, to average 288 K we’d need a nightside average around 274 K.

    That’s all pointless though, what we need to do is look at the actual dayside input and known average temperature, and work out what emissivity that would give.

    Happily I already did these calculations:

    For the total surface to emit 1.22×10^17 W and average 288 K, the longwave emissivity needs to be .569~ while the shortwave albedo needs to be .3, so I guess the question would become “can longwave emissivity and shortwave albedo be different values?” wouldn’t it?

  91. Tim Folkerts says:

    Max, you are doing pretty well. I agree with your ~ 302 K = ~ 29 C (I get closer to 31.2 C) for the daylight side, which is what I said far upstream in this thread to Joe (correcting his incorrect 49 C value).

    But at this temperature, the daylight side is emitting enough IR to balance the ENTIRE solar input. This means the night side must ZERO energy if this world is to remain balanced for total energy.

    Your biggest problem seems to be that you want to average the temperature to get 255 K, but this is not correct. The 255 K is a surrogate for the correct physics, which is energy.
    * 255 K on both sides would give the right total energy.
    * 265 K & 243.7 K on the two sides would give the right total energy = average 254.8 K
    * 280 K & 219.3 K on the two sides would give the right total energy = average 249.6 K
    * 295 K & 172 K on the two sides would give the right total energy = average 234 K
    * 300 K & 137 K on the two sides would give the right total energy = average 219 K
    * 302 K & 108 K on the two sides would give the right total energy = average 205 K

    The average is NOT 255 K when the temperature is not uniform! The less uniform, the further below 255 K the temperature would be.

    “For the total surface to emit 1.22×10^17 W and average 288 K, the longwave emissivity needs to be .569…”
    I suppose you could say it that way. But the truth is that the surface has an emissivity quite close to 1. I think it is better to think of it as only SOME of the energy from the 288 K blackbody escapes to space (the rest is blocked by the atmosphere). The rest of the energy emitted to space comes from the colder upper atmosphere. Together, these emit the required 1.22×10^17 W.

  92. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “Go ahead, Ulric, and calculate the effective black body surface temperature for albedos of 0.3 and 0.04 and 0.00. See if you can get the values as high as 288 K with only sunlight and no GHGs. The best way to “get it” is to try the calculations for yourself!”

    My point is that GHG’s *reduce* peak daytime surface temperatures by absorbing solar near infra-red. These losses are larger than any gain at the surface from DWIR from the GHG’s, else the surface would be warmer and not cooler.
    There is no way to explain the 288K by means of radiative black body values, mostly because of the enormous heat capacity of the oceans, which behave as a thermal reservoir and not as a black body.

  93. Tim Folkerts says:

    Ulric says: “My point is that GHG’s *reduce* peak daytime surface temperatures by absorbing solar near infra-red. “
    Certainly some near IR is absorbed on the way down (part of the “78 Absorbed by Atmosphere” in K&T diagram). Yes, the direct impact of this absorption will be to reduce the peak temp at the ground.

    “These losses are larger than any gain at the surface from DWIR from the GHG’s … “
    You can assert this, but you would need to back up that claim. K&T present a 78 W/m^2 loss and a much larger 333 W/m^2 gain, so that would suggest that the DWIR cannot simply be assumed to be small, since they seem to be 4 times LARGER than the losses!

    “… else the surface would be warmer and not cooler.”
    Warmer than what? If there is ANY DWIR, then the surface will be warmer than a similar surface with no DWIR. Beyond that, many other factors (albedo, heat capacity, evaporation … ) will affect the peak temperature. But DWIR is a warming factor.

    “There is no way to explain the 288K by means of radiative black body values ….”
    Plenty of intelligent, informed scientists can and do explain 288K using DWIR and GHGs. It is actually quite easy to do. You may not AGREE with them, but there are very convincing arguments. None of them involve violating conservation of energy (as Joe’s plan does). None of them involve violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    ” … mostly because of the enormous heat capacity of the oceans, which behave as a thermal reservoir and not as a black body.
    The oceans behave as a thermal reservoir AND as a black body — the two are in no way mutually exclusive.
    Certainly the heat capacity of the oceans and the ground helps even out the temperatures (lowering peak temperatures and raising nighttime temperatures) by acting as a “thermal reservoir” providing “thermal inertia”.

    MY point is that (without GHGs and DWIR), the sun light can EITHER
    1) use ALL of its energy to raise the earth to ~ 30-40 C during the day (warmer at noon) with temperatures PLUNGING at night down toward absolute zero or
    2) use SOME of its energy to warm the surface to ~ 0 C during the day (at the equator), storing excess energy to keep the earth ~ 0 C at night as well.

    But there is simply not enough energy to warm the surface to ~ 30 C AND to keep the temperature anywhere close to habitable at night — not with sunlight alone.

  94. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts said:
    “You can assert this, but you would need to back up that claim…”

    You already backed that up with your:
    “Yes, the direct impact of this absorption will be to reduce the peak temp at the ground.”

    It’s very simple Tim, the DWIR reaching the surface does not make up for what NIR is absorbed by GHG’s.

    Tim:
    “Plenty of intelligent, informed scientists can and do explain 288K using DWIR and GHGs.”

    I’m not impressed.

    Tim:
    “Certainly the heat capacity of the oceans and the ground helps even out the temperatures..”

    And substantially raise the mean temperature.

    Tim:
    “MY point is that (without GHGs and DWIR), the sun light can..
    2) use SOME of its energy to warm the surface to ~ 0 C during the day (at the equator), storing excess energy to keep the earth ~ 0 C at night as well.”

    We know that it warms to considerably more than 0 C, and we know that GHG’s reduce peak daytime equatorial surface temperatures.

  95. suricat says:

    Guys.

    Had a hectic weekend with the grandchildren, then got involved with a defunct loo-cistern. Sorry for the delay, but I’ve been busy. :(

    After seeing recent comments I’ll not continue from my last post, but make other offerings. :)

    Ulric Lyons says: December 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    “My point is that GHGs *reduce* peak daytime surface temperatures by absorbing solar near infra-red.”

    I would concur if there were a better explanation, like: Vaporising water cools Earth’s surface and releases that energy at altitude, whilst occupying the lower atmosphere as an effective ‘GHG’ (IR active gas).

    I take the Earth IR sig. at altitude to be ‘latent thermal release’ from the phase change of water vapour to liquid water. Low atmospheric altitudes only offer temp. obs. ‘within’ the ‘cooling zone’. In fact, following radiosonde data received from ‘FM’ (Ferenc Miskolczi), I’m of the opinion that the assumption of a ‘temp : energy’ relationship (radiative, or sensible) can’t be accurately observed below ‘cloud top’ altitude.

    Would you put your ‘room thermostat’ in the fridge??? Do you still wonder why Earth’s IR sig. suggests a higher temp. than the surface atmospheric temp.??? It’s the WATER!!! :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  96. Ulric Lyons says:

    suricat says:
    “I would concur if there were a better explanation, like: Vaporising water cools Earth’s surface and releases that energy at altitude, whilst occupying the lower atmosphere as an effective ‘GHG’ (IR active gas).”

    Effective GHG? no the surface will reach a higher temperature if there is less water vapour present in the lower atmosphere locally.

  97. Tim Folkerts says:

    It’s very simple Tim, the DWIR reaching the surface does not make up for what NIR is absorbed by GHG’s.
    Simply repeating a claim does not make it any more true. DWIR can be measured — it amounts to 100’s of W/m^2.
    [Moderation note] UpWelling IR can be measured too. It averages ~50w/M^2 more than the DWIR.
    THE NET FLUX IS UP – COOLING THE SURFACE

    The absorbed near IR from the sun can also be measured .. it is less than 100 W/m^2. Why do you insist that an energy supply that is mroe than 100W/m^2 cannot make up for a loss that is less than 100 W/m^2?

    “We know that it warms to considerably more than 0 C, and we know that GHG’s reduce peak daytime equatorial surface temperatures.
    But we know that GHGs INCREASE the temperature 24 hours a day. This could (and I conclude does) raise the temperature more than the lose of some near IR.

    Also, you have to remember that the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is STILL absorbed, just not my the surface. It is spread out throughout the atmosphere, warming it all a bit (rather than warming the surface a lot. The net result is just as much total energy absorbed. So while the peak surface temperature is decreased, the overall average temperature will be about the same.

  98. suricat says:

    Ulric Lyons says: December 5, 2012 at 11:22 am

    “Effective GHG? no the surface will reach a higher temperature if there is less water vapour present in the lower atmosphere locally.”

    ??? Surely, “if there is less water vapour present in the lower atmosphere locally”, it’s due to the lack of local surface water!

    As surface water vaporises/evaporates, it (invisibly) removes heat from the surface resulting in a cooler surface temp.. If the local ‘RH’ (relative humidity) is low, surface water is stimulated towards an increased evaporation rate. This removes heat from the surface water, which, in turn, removes heat from the land surface. At 100% RH the surface water doesn’t evaporate, so the surface gets hotter (the Clausius Clapyron relationship).

    Scenarios for a hot surface air temp. are ‘high insolation rate with no surface water’ (desert), or ‘high insolation rate with surface water and air at 100% RH’ (tropical jungle/swamp).

    The heat removed from the surface is ‘dumped’ at cloud condensation altitude. Water vapour is a strongly IR active gas, but at these altitudes IR doesn’t penetrate very far before it’s extinction, thus, can be mostly ignored for its part in energy transport. Now I’m in for it. :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  99. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    “Why do you insist that an energy supply that is mroe than 100W/m^2 cannot make up for a loss that is less than 100 W/m^2?”

    Well if meteo observations show that higher humidity results in lower peak surface temperatures, the net outcome has to be negative.

    “But we know that GHGs INCREASE the temperature 24 hours a day.”

    No they reduce peak surface temperatures, as you explain in your next paragraph…
    “Also, you have to remember that the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is STILL absorbed, just not my the surface. It is spread out throughout the atmosphere, warming it all a bit (rather than warming the surface a lot. The net result is just as much total energy absorbed. So while the peak surface temperature is decreased, the overall average temperature will be about the same.”

    And ~half of what is absorbed by water vapour radiates to space and can never warm the surface. And then there is the fact that co2 absorbs NIR too.

  100. Tim Folkerts says:

    The moderator says: “[Moderation note] UpWelling IR can be measured too. It averages ~50w/M^2 more than the DWIR.
    THE NET FLUX IS UP – COOLING THE SURFACE”

    This is most certainly true! I am glad we agree that both of these are real and can be measured.

    But this misses a major point. A warm surface will have UWIR flux INDEPENDENT of the downward flux (UWIR is a function of the surface temperature and emissivity). With no DWIR flux, the net IR flux would be ~ 400 W/m^2, leading to drastic cooling from thermal IR! This is not enough solar power to keep the surface radiating 400 W/m^2 24/7.

    With ~ 350 W/m^2 of DWIR that mostly balances the UWIR, the surface has only a modest~ 50 W/m^2 of net IR cooling, rather than 400 W/m^2 of net IR cooling. Only ~ 50 W/m^2 of sunlight are needed to make up this difference, leaving about 100 W/m^2 of surface-absorbed sunlight to offset the ~80 W/m^2 of evaporative surface cooling and ~ 20 W/m^2 of convective surface cooling.

    [Reply] The numbers are debatable, the theoretical physics is too, but is a separate issue. For now, feel free to develop your argument, taking full note of the fact that DWIR cannot penetrate water by more than around 10um.

  101. Ulric Lyons says:

    suricat says:
    “Surely, “if there is less water vapour present in the lower atmosphere locally”, it’s due to the lack of local surface water!”

    Can be, but not exclusively.

    “Water vapour is a strongly IR active gas, but at these altitudes IR doesn’t penetrate very far before it’s extinction, thus, can be mostly ignored for its part in energy transport.”

    Water vapour absorbs roughly a third of solar NIR.

  102. Ulric Lyons says:

    suricat says:
    “Surely, “if there is less water vapour present in the lower atmosphere locally”, it’s due to the lack of local surface water!”

    Places with low surface water can still have highly variable amounts of atmospheric water vapour present locally.

  103. Stephen Wilde says:

    A question:

    Each GHG floating in the air has already been warmed by the sun or by conduction from the ground below, or by conduction from surrounding molecules or by the atmospheric pressure at the height at which it sits to the highest temperature achievable in its specific set of circumstances.

    If it then encounters upward longwave from the surface how does it get yet warmer so as to reradiate more energy down to the ground than it was doing already ?

    In that situation surely the extra longwave from the ground will just pass by the GHG molecule altogether and continue out to space ?

  104. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen asks “If it [a GHG molecule] then encounters upward longwave from the surface how does it get yet warmer so as to reradiate more energy down to the ground than it was doing already ?

    Looking specifically at CO2, it has a bending mode corresponding to 667 cm-1 (or 15 um, or 2E13 Hz, or 1.3E-20 J). Check out (for example) http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/jimn/CO2/Pages/CO2Theory.htm for info. This bending mode allows the CO2 molecule to emit or absorb 15 um photons.

    There are two reason why “surely the extra longwave from the ground will just pass by the GHG molecule” is incorrect.

    1) The CO2 molecule will not ‘keep’ that energy very long. Once a CO2 molecule gains energy by absorbing a 15 um photon, collisions with other molecules will allow the vibrating CO2 molecule to transfer the energy to other molecules, returning the CO2 molecule to its ground state, ready to absorb another photon.

    2) There are multiple levels for this bending mode. EVEN IF the CO2 molecule is already in an excited state with an extra 1.3E-20 J of bending energy, it can still absorb another 15 um photons and vibrate with 2*(1.3E-20 J) of energy.

  105. Stephen Wilde says:

    Yes Tim, I can see that for an individual molecule of CO2 but consider that molecule together with its surroundings.

    Any ‘excess’ that it tries to retain will be immediately lost one way or another to surrounding molecules either by conduction to less radiatively active gases or by radiation to other GHGs such as water vapour which is far more plentiful.

    So all of them are instantly going to share out any ‘excess’ and radiate it upwards.

    I really can’t see that any of the molecules present can get hotter than the incoming insolation will allow so on average over an area the upward longwave from the ground is just going to pass straight through.

    You seem to impliedly accept that in principle by agreeing that the molecule will not retain it for very long.

    Given that it is all happening at the speed of light I suggest that ‘not very long’ is pretty close to zero.

    The thing is that if individual molecules could get hotter than the incoming insolation allows then you have a positive feedback loop where the heat accumulates exponentially and that disobeys conservation of energy given that the energy coming in from the sun is a fixed quantity.

    Do you see the problem ?

  106. Bryan says:

    Tim Folkerts says

    “The CO2 molecule will not ‘keep’ that energy very long. Once a CO2 molecule gains energy by absorbing a 15 um photon, collisions with other molecules will allow the vibrating CO2 molecule to transfer the energy to other molecules, returning the CO2 molecule to its ground state, ready to absorb another photon”

    Keep in mind the much more numerous H2O molecules present.
    They have a much wider active IR response.
    This means that H2O longer wavelength (than 15um) emissions will be much more likely to be collisionally activated.
    This reduces up and down 15um emissions and accounts for the ‘bite’ on the outgoing spectra as viewed by satellite.

  107. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen says: “So all of them are instantly going to share out any ‘excess’ and radiate it upwards.
    Well, they will radiate QUICKLY (not quite instantly) and in RANDOM directions (not necessarily upward). But otherwise I have no quarrel with this.

    “I really can’t see that any of the molecules present can get hotter than the incoming insolation will allow …
    That sounds pretty good. The IR from the ground cannot warm the atmosphere to a temperature above the temperature of the ground.

    ” .. so on average over an area the upward longwave from the ground is just going to pass straight through.
    No, because each layer is cooler than the one below it. Each layer radiates the IR less well. So the IR gets slowly attenuated as you go up.
    * Look at the satellite data: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2-absorption/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg
    * Look at detailed calculations: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html
    The farther up you go, the less IR gets thru in the GHG bands.

    “Given that it is all happening at the speed of light I suggest that ‘not very long’ is pretty close to zero.
    The times for the CO2 molecules to emit radiation or to collide with other molecules are not related to the speed of light. The time that a molecule can “hold” a photon before re-emitting that energy depends on some rather involved quantum mechanics that determine the lifetime in the excited state. The time until the molecule can collide with another molecule and transfer the energy depends on the “mean free time” between collisions. Both are very short times, but neither is directly related to the speed of light.

  108. suricat says:

    Tim Folkerts says: December 5, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Well that’s OK for the 15 um lasing band, but IMHO the question was one of what happens to the “extra long-wave from the ground” and is non-specific as to any particular wavelength.

    Don’t these ‘other wavelengths’ in the long-wave band just ‘weakly’ absorb into molecules of ~the same frequency IR as their collisionally generated temp.? Then get ‘weakly’ emitted by the molecule that absorbed the energy in the first place? Isn’t this the radiative part of ‘conduction within a gas’ that is a weak form of energy transport?

    The 15 um band that you mention for CO2 does emit at that wave length, but prior to emission electrons need to be excited enough to cause a ‘shell migration’ to higher orbits. These ‘higher orbits’ then relax into a lower orbit and emit a photon as they do so. Problem is that the electron’s elevated shell state has some degree of stability and the time scale to ‘relaxation and photon emission’ is indeterminate, thus, the energy that caused shell migration can be robbed by collisional interference before a photon can be emitted. BTW, it’s the ‘flapping bonds’ of a tri-atomic molecule that stresses the electrons into a shell migration.

    This is the changing roll of GHG’s. In the lower atmosphere, where collisions are frequent, emission is rare, but in the upper atmosphere, where collisions are rare, emission is most prevalent.

    Where gas CO2 Lasers etc. are used in industry the ‘emission time problem’ is overcome by inducing an ‘empty ground state’ by way of the ‘population inversion’ system.

    If I’ve not explained this well, here’s a wiki page that may help: :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion

    Best regards, Ray.

  109. Stephen Wilde says:

    ” .. so on average over an area the upward longwave from the ground is just going to pass straight through.
    No, because each layer is cooler than the one below it. Each layer radiates the IR less well. So the IR gets slowly attenuated as you go up.”

    Are you referring to just the upward IR from CO2 there ?

    I agree that if you are just referring to that then it will get attenuated because CO2 is a very small proportion of the atmosphere so upward IR from CO2 is very likely to interact with other radiatively active molecules higher up and then be re emitted upward by those molecules at their wavelength or sent back down to the ground again or to other molecules between them and the ground.

    So by all those processes the IR signature of upward emissions from CO2 is going to get pretty much wiped put.

    However that is not an indication that the CO2 is stopping energy from being emitted, merely that on the way out it is being absorbed and re emitted multiple times by the ground or the more numerous molecules of other types which impose their own IR signature on the outgoing CO2 emissions.

    Appart from that I don’t follow the reasoning about each layer radiating less well as one goes up. Surely that just means that the higher the level is the less of an obstacle it presents to upward flows from the warmer denser levels below.Thus the effect on the upward flow would be zero.

    I take the point about the time that a molecule can hold a photon being different from the speed of light but my point is that if a new photon comes in which would if retained have the effect of making the molecule warmer than insolation allows then the arrival of the new photon will cause another photon to be kicked out instantly so as to keep the molecule at the earlier temperature.

    That would work in a cascade effect so that the flow of upward longwave from the surface would not slow down at all and that is the important point.

    In particular it cannot be sent back down again because that would require the molecule in the air to become too hot and one would enter a never ending positive feedback loop.

    For all those reasons I am having problems envisaging how molecules in the air could possibly send back down any more of the upward IR from the ground than they would do in any event.

    Which pretty much stuffs the concept of there being any increase in DWIR from an increase in GHGs.

  110. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:30 am: “ if a new photon comes in which would if retained have the effect of making the molecule warmer than insolation allows then the arrival of the new photon will cause another photon to be kicked out instantly so as to keep the molecule at the earlier temperature.”

    No. Just because Stephen struggles to understand this process doesn’t “pretty much stuffs the concept of there being any increase in DWIR from an increase in GHGs.”

    There are two excellent texts that explain clear and precise how molecular level atm. radiation emission and absorption physics work, one by Grant Petty and one by Craig Bohren. To follow-up Stephen’s professed interest, get them both (on loan is ok), read & reduce Stephen’s struggles – find all the answers Stephen seeks.

    A taste of honey is in Bohren 2.7.1 where each mode of motion for a molecule is completely explained for its conserved Total Energy = E,translation + E,rotation + E,vibration + E,electronic

    The component of molecule total Energy Stephen struggles with in clip above is E,electronic. Bohren explains why most of the molecules at Earth temperatures are in their base energy state. An IR photon from below can be absorbed by CO2 molecule, kick an electron up an energy level from base. Another IR photon can come in and kick the electron up another level, enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2. The CO2 molecule in higher than base state mode electron kicks down a discrete energy level by emitting an IR photon in the same state as absorbed. 50/50 UWIR toward space or DWIR toward ground. No preference.

    By the way, Bohren also explains p.81: “Water vapor is infrared active, nitrogen and oxygen, for the most part, are infrared inactive. Greenhouse gases are produced by resident cats with digestive problems.”

  111. Stephen Wilde says:

    If the CO2 molecules are at the base state why would an incoming photon not cause the emission of an IR photon in the same state as absorbed ?

    Wouldn’t the molecule have to be below base state in order to require multiple kicks to make the electron emit a photon ?

    If a molecule in base state failed to emit after a single kick it would then be above the base state but Bohren explains that most of them are not above base state so that must be unusual statistically.

    Presumably if some molecules were to be already above base rate when hit then they could emit more than absorbed in order to then return to base state?

    So, on average, no significant delay ?

  112. Bryan says:

    Trick says:

    “Another IR photon can come in and kick the electron up another level, enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2. The CO2 molecule in higher than base state mode electron kicks down a discrete energy level by emitting an IR photon in the same state as absorbed. 50/50 UWIR toward space or DWIR toward ground. No preference.”

    This is very confused.

    Multiple photon kicks leading to ionisation of CO2 molecule.
    What photon wavelengths are involved?

    I have never come across anything like this in any posts on atmospheric physics and CO2 behavior at atmospheric temperatures.

    I think you must be mistaken.

  113. Bryan says:

    The ionisation potential of CO2 is 13.78 eV.

    This requires a photon of high energy UV, almost into the soft X-ray spectrum !

  114. Trick says:

    Bryan – ” I have never come across anything like this…”

    Then treat this as a learning moment. Google “Energy level transition” or “energy levels of electrons”.

  115. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:52 pm: “If the CO2 molecules are at the base state why would an incoming photon not cause the emission of an IR photon in the same state as absorbed ?”

    I feel like google must. Anyway, it would. The IR photon was previously aimed at deep space, gets absorbed and identically re-emitted by CO2 molecule but now 50/50 chance of re-aimed at ground b/c the molecule is rotating.

    “Wouldn’t the molecule have to be below base state in order to require multiple kicks to make the electron emit a photon ?”

    No.There are more than 1 discrete energy levels above base state, infinity being the ionization level. Bohren shows the equations for why most are in base state at normal earth temp.s; my writing them might be considered opaque by tallbloke, ha. Fill me in for CO2 when you look it up.

  116. Bryan says:

    Trick says:

    “Then treat this as a learning moment. Google “Energy level transition” or “energy levels of electrons”.

    So Trick thinks that multiple kicks of 15um will give rise to an 88 nm photon.

    That would be about 170 kicks.

    What planet do you live on?

  117. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:52 pm: “Presumably if some molecules were to be already above base rate when hit then they could emit more than absorbed in order to then return to base state?”

    Molecules won’t emit more E,electronic than absorbed but yeah a molecule already above arb. base state, aborbing another photon, it could then emit two photons 1up & 1down say or two down and 0 up. There are some physics involved, I’m interested to know for CO2, fill me in. Maybe Bryan will.

  118. Trick says:

    Bryan 4:25 pm: “So Trick thinks that multiple kicks of 15um will give rise to an 88 nm photon”

    I do huh? News to me. I don’t think 170 kicks can happen for CO2 Bryan the electron will fly out of “orbit” firs ionizing the molecule, fill us in what really happens. Sometimes, reading posts here, I think I must be from Mars or Venus, but then I come down to Earth, usually by checking a relevant text.

  119. Bryan says:

    Trick

    I have already stated that the ionisation potential of CO2 is 13.78 eV.

    Work out how many 15um photons that equates to .

    Answer is about 170.

    Now read your favorite text book about ;

    Molecular collision frequency at atmospheric temperatures
    Average time for CO2 molecule in ‘excited state’ at 255K
    The photoelectric effect and quantum mechanics

    You will then find that ionisation of CO2 by atmospheric IR never happens

  120. Good god! Someone is stating that 170 15um photons can add together and bump up an ionization potential????!!!!! Holy freaking cow…

  121. …that’s another one to add to my list of “things that are like the GHE”.

    X: The GHE is like when quantum mechanics doesn’t exist.

    Why not just throw out all logic and the laws of physics while we’re at it!? Oh…wait…

  122. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well I’m not an expert in the fine detail but it still sounds to me as though on average for all the molecules in a given parcel of air they emit as much as they absorb pretty much instantaneously because if they became hotter than permitted by the level of insolation there would be a breach of the thermo laws.

    And they aren’t ever going to be forced by upward longwave from the surface to send more back down than they were doing already because that would be a breach too given that they would need to get hotter to achieve it.

    So far from warming the surface with DWIR the upward longwave from the ground gets a free pass for a zero effect on the outward energy flow.

  123. Trick says:

    Stephen 5:39pm “So far from warming the surface with DWIR the upward longwave from the ground gets a free pass for a zero effect on the outward energy flow.”

    Stephen, ok, far from warming the surface, I would explain there is a positive effect on the slowing of the cooling of the surface when an UWIR photon heading for deep space is absorbed by an infrared active molecule, turned around by molecular rotation, and emitted toward the surface as DWIR returning the molecule to base state. Statistics applies also.

    Bryan 4:46 pm: You will then find that ionisation of CO2 by atmospheric IR never happens.”

    I agree Bryan sets up a strawman and knocks strawman down, we are not talking high altitude physics here, just control volume W/m^2 in balance, PV=nRT and troposphere lapse. I read the texts; they show by eqn. how CO2 in base state can be elevated one discrete electron level by atm. UWIR and turned into DWIR radiation statistically. Pretty cool. Check it out.

  124. Bryan says:

    Trick says

    “Bryan 4:46 pm: You will then find that ionisation of CO2 by atmospheric IR never happens.”

    I agree Bryan sets up a strawman and knocks strawman down,”

    Hold on there Trick, here’s what you said.

    “The component of molecule total Energy Stephen struggles with in clip above is E,electronic. Bohren explains why most of the molecules at Earth temperatures are in their base energy state. An IR photon from below can be absorbed by CO2 molecule, kick an electron up an energy level from base. Another IR photon can come in and kick the electron up another level, enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2.”

    Did you not realise that you wrote…….

    “enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2.”

    You made a silly statement and I brought it to your attention.

    The least you could do is to thank me for pointing you in the right direction

  125. Trick says:

    Bryan: 6:24 pm : “You made a silly statement and I brought it to your attention.”

    Bryan! My statement enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2 is not silly, it is basic physics, right out of the relevant textbooks.

    Note I did not say or even imply enough kicks could come from atmosphere radiation, THAT is your strawman set up and knocked down.

    The least Bryan could do is to thank me for pointing Bryan in the right direction. Now I suppose there is a nonzero statistical chance an N2 molecule could get enough KE kicks to just be driven right up and out of the atmosphere to get ionized in space, about 1 in 10^335 N2 would do so, but there are fewer than 10^44 N2 of all kicks. So there’s that.

  126. Stephen Wilde says:

    “There is a positive effect on the slowing of the cooling of the surface when an UWIR photon heading for deep space is absorbed by an infrared active molecule, turned around by molecular rotation, and emitted toward the surface as DWIR returning the molecule to base state”

    Evidence ?

    Other than assumption and assertion.

    The fact is that the temperature of the air at all levels is determined by mass, gravity and insolation which together produce variable proportions of KE and PE at each level resulting in a lapse rate.

    The similarity of the vertical temperature profiles on Venus and Earth is proof that composition has no relevance.

    At the ground it is all KE and as one moves up the proportion of KE reduces and temperature falls.

    Radiative physics plays no part in that process and is incapable of disrupting it.

    When one takes into account the effect of the increasing proportion of KE towards the surface there is no place left for DWIR.

  127. JWR says:

    @Stephen Wilde
    I follow more or less this blog and I conclude that you just confirmed what Claes Johnson says since years. Doug Cotton has also given arguments that back-radiation cannot exist.
    I have made a model using the one-stream heat flow formulation. No back-radiation.
    It turns out that convection of sensible and latent heat is the most important mechanism.

    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf

  128. Bryan says:

    Trick your reading comprehension sucks.

    Its particularly serious when you don’t seem to understand what you yourself have written.

    “Note I did not say or even imply enough kicks could come from atmosphere radiation,”

    You actually said above

    “molecules at Earth temperatures are in their base energy state. An IR photon from below can be absorbed by CO2 molecule, kick an electron up an energy level from base. Another IR photon can come in and kick the electron up another level, enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2.”

    Note the words…..

    Earth temperatures…..
    IR photon from below…..
    Another IR photon can come in…..
    and kick the electron up another level,……
    enough kicks and the electron departs, ionizing the CO2.”

    You only mentioned Earth temperatures, IR photons and ionizing the CO2.”

  129. Trick says:

    Bryan – I did NOT say where the extra kicks come from, not even imply they could come from atm. they are EXTRA; that they could come from the atm. is all in your strawman.

    [Reply] I thought you were telling Stephen why ground emitted photons wouldn’t pass by co2 molecules in the air?

  130. Trick says:

    Stephen 6:50 pm: “Evidence ?”

    Are you breathing today? There is evidence CO2 inhabits the atm.

    There is evidence CO2 is infrared active gas, that it can absorb an IR photon & emit an identical IR photon. Search.

    There is evidence the CO2 molecules can spin. Search.

    There is evidence of the DWIR measured with good enough engineering precision near the surface. Search.

    There is evidence of the UWIR measured with good enough engineering precision near the surface. Search.

    There is evidence the Earth has been in LTE for eons with variations: roughly indicating global net solar flux-in measured net of (UWIR-DWIR) flux-out measured balance to zero at a certain measured Tavg. = 288K being fairly constant & positive DT/dt during day, negative DT/dt at night.

    There is evidence we are here. Look around. It is not your lying eyes.

    There is evidence of the 1st Law, 2nd Law and other relevant laws regularly observed in the Universe. Search.

    There is radiation evidence from satellites. Search.

    What more evidence do you need? Search for that too.

    There is evidence we haven’t perfected science yet; we are still just practicing science.

    The fact is that the temperature of the atm. air at all levels is determined by mass, gravity and Tavg. from insolation net of (UWIR-DWIR). And a gas constant. P=density*R*Tavg. needs mass, gravity, and Tavg. of the air parcel at the level of interest to get the P(z). P(z), surface P measured, and potential temperature measured is all we need to know to get the atm. exact ideal lapse rate. Pretty cool.

  131. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “The fact is that the temperature of the atm. air at all levels is determined by mass, gravity and Tavg. from insolation net of (UWIR-DWIR). And a gas constant. P=density*R*Tavg. needs mass, gravity, and Tavg. of the air parcel at the level of interest to get the P(z). P(z), surface P measured, and potential temperature measured is all we need to know to get the atm. exact ideal lapse rate. Pretty cool.”

    How could you understand all that and then introduce UWIR and DWIR. ?

    The temperature is set without needing to consider either of them because they must cancel out at all times and at all levels.

    If, for any reason they go out of balance the atmospheric circulation simply reconfigures to negate the imbalance by altering the speed of energy flow through the atmosphere.

    I accept that composition changes can put them out of balance but it must always have been corrected on any planet that still has an atmosphere.

    You just showed that you know the truth but don’t realise it.

    And it isn’t really DWIR at all. It is simply the temperature of the air at each level.And UWIR is also just the temperature of the air at each level.

    Because mass, gravity and insolation alone determine the temperature at every level both UWIR and DWIR must be mere mathematical constructs whereby any imbalance between them produces a net flow either up or down and then the air circulation cancels the imbalance.

    I thank you for helping me to achieve that insight.

  132. Trick says:

    You’re welcome for the education Stephen. It has been fun. The DWIR and UWIR are never, ever in balance and Earth atm. has circulation.

    Let’s see what happens if UWIR and DWIR ever get in balance, start with all measured number reality:

    Let the thermo system settle to equilibrium. Balance the Earth control volume big picture flux density, surface (L&O) emissivity measured so near 1.0 we can round it up to 1.0, atm. e measured near 0.8:

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE. You can see right away there’s an issue & it is a PROBLEM.

    1370 * 0.7 – 4*sigma*(1-0.8/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289K

    Here’s what happens if UWIR and DWIR are suddenly somehow forced in balance so the global balance is forced out of balance:

    1370 * 0.7/4 – sigma*(1-1) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = m*Cp*DT/dt

    1370 * 0.7/4 = m*Cp*DT/dt daytime rapid heating

    0 = m*Cp*DT/dt night time rapid cooling

    Let the thermo system settle to equilibrium. Balance the Earth control volume something like ?.

    Maybe could do this, integrate t over a 12hours of net solar and over 0 solar:

    (1370*0.7/4*m*Cp) * t = Tavg. + constant; t=0to12 hours/day at equator,

    Integrate t over a 12hours of 0 solar:

    0*t = Tavg. + constant; Night time Tavg. = the constant. Measure Tavg. at night get the constant, find Tavg. during the day.

    Tmax., Tmin. goes like the moon, get not as well defined Tavg. over whole planet

    Maybe Earth boils over & then freezes each day; we would not be here. Of course this can’t happen because of atm. emissivity DWIR flux density at surface factor:

    0.8/2 = e/2, and in the limit as atm. e 0.8 goes to 1.0 BB, DWIR factor only goes to ½ or 0.5

    so UWIR and DWIR never in balance and DWIR always < UWIR, always. Thankfully we observe in measured reality half the atm. emissivity e=0.8/2 just goes right out to deep space. Thankfully the measured remaining half DWIR goes to surface forcing measured Tavg.=289K and we are here in the big picture.

    Anthropically yours…but opaque for tallbloke (b/c I used eqn.s.?). So there’s that.

    [reply] Looks like we’ve both been busted. Warmist equations never made much sense to me. Stuff always seemed to be left out of them. ;)

  133. Stephen Wilde says:

    Of course DWIR and UWIR are never in balance because so much keeps changing naturally.

    The point is that any such imbalances produce a negative system response to move the balance back towards equilibrium.

    It never actually achieves balance but the circulation changes are always fighting against such imbalance as there is at any given moment.

    The thing wrong with your equations is that if, as you accept ,the temperature is determined by mass, gravity and insolation then UWIR and DWIR must cancel out WITHIN the atmosphere.

    That doesn’t apply at top of atmosphere though because there are two separate energy loops remember.

    Within the atmospheric loop from surface to top of atmosphere UWIR and DWIR must always be equal on average over time or the atmosphere will be lost.

    Then, at top of atmosphere all that is left is UWIR which depends on the temperature set by mass, gravity and insolation alone.

    UWIR and DWIR are both just convenient mathematical constructs representing the temperature at any given level

  134. Stephen Wilde says:

    To clarify, the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.

  135. Trick says:

    Stephen: “The thing wrong with your equations is that if, as you accept ,the temperature is determined by mass, gravity and insolation then UWIR and DWIR must cancel out WITHIN the atmosphere.”

    No sir. They do not cancel. Nothing wrong, all measured. Look at the near surface DWIR and UWIR measurements at different altitudes, different places, not in balance, not even close. Can’t be and be stable big picture. Half the atm. emissivity goes to deep space, half to surface. Always at LTE, even if Tavg. changes at surface.

    “Within the atmospheric loop from surface to top of atmosphere UWIR and DWIR must always be equal on average over time or the atmosphere will be lost.”

    No sir, they are not in any sort of balance anywhere measured (not math constructs – physical), yet the atm. is still here. To lose the atm., have to get N2 molecule speed > 11,200 m/s and most probable avg. N2 speed is ~401 m/s at Earth temp.s.

    Well, maybe I can think of a way to get them the same for a bit. After an esp. hot or cold, sunny/cloudy day the night cooling with clouds/not clouds/rain might just be able to get them close but it won’t last very long (~hr? or so), sort of like you know, fog burns off. Or the measuring instrument fails, like a stopped clock that is right twice a day – way more often than one that is slow 5 min.s a day, ha.

    Stephen 9:49 pm: “To clarify, the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    ^ding^ Now you are talking. I think you may have it!

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.

    UWIR in excess of solar must always be matched by DWIR for LTE, we have agreement. Lift off of Stephen’s new voyage to infinity and beyond.

  136. Trick says:

    Lest Bryan jump me with a strawman again, clarify with the word “net” inserted:

    Stephen 9:49 pm: “To clarify, the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    ^ding^ Now Stephen is talking. I think Stephen may have it!

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.

    UWIR in excess of net solar must always be matched by DWIR for LTE, we have agreement. Lift off of Stephen’s new voyage to infinity and beyond. Godspeed Stephen.

  137. suricat says:

    Stephen Wilde says: December 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    “How could you understand all that and then introduce UWIR and DWIR. ?”

    Because if Trick ignored them, insolation would have to be ignored as well. They’re all modes of perturbation to the ‘electromagnetic’ (EM) field.

    If you accept one mode of EM radiation, I don’t see a way to effectively assess an Earth model without including all other modes of EM radiated energy transfer.

    Sorry if I’m not keeping up with the posting rate. :(

    Best regards, Ray.

  138. Stephen Wilde says:

    The ‘trick’ :) is to give solar energy a pass through and thereby isolate the vertical loop within the atmosphere.

    Anything that seeks to drive the UWIR / DWIR amounts away from balance in the atmospheric loop will be negated by circulation changes driven by a redistribution of KE and PE which alters the densities of different parcels of air so that they can move around and adjust the energy throughput.

  139. Stephen Wilde says:

    Here is an article I put together for climateralists.com earlier this evening.

    “The Thermal Regulation Of Planetary Atmospheres

    1) This is the third in a series of short articles which purport to simplify and explain the basic workings of a climate system. It is applicable to any planet with an atmosphere.
    I have previously established in my first article that the entire mass of the atmosphere contributes to the warming of the surface below it.
    In my second article I established that it is gases which are not so called greenhouse gases that contribute most to the warming effect both in absolute terms and proportionately.
    Intrinsic to the whole scenario is the fact that the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is fixed by mass, gravity and insolation alone so that changes in the composition of the atmosphere can have no effect.
    The proof is the simple established fact that at the same atmospheric pressure the temperatures within the atmospheres of both Earth and Venus are much the same when simply adjusted for their different distances from the sun.
    Their vastly differing atmospheric compositions make no difference.
    This article goes on to consider how that must be achieved.

    2) If the sole determinants of surface temperature are mass, gravity and insolation then what role is played by upward infrared radiation from the surface (UWIR) and downward infrared radiation from the sky (DWIR)?

    3) The proponents of a human effect on climate support their case by suggesting that DWIR from the sky, having been increased by composition changes such as more greenhouse gases then offsets a portion of the naturally occurring UWIR thereby slowing the cooling of the Earth and forcing the equilibrium temperature to rise.

    4) But how can that be so if temperature is solely controlled by mass, gravity and insolation?

    5) It cannot be so and we must try to work out why.

    6) Logic tells us that if an equation doesn’t need an additional term then it should be left out. In this case we have two unnecessary terms (UWIR and DWIR) so the answer must be that in the real world they cancel out.

    7) Note that the two terms can only be cancelled out within the atmosphere since there is additionally a flow of energy coming in from the sun which is being transmitted through the atmosphere in parallel and emitted out to space at the same rate as it comes in. UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR. My first article described the separate energy processing loop within the atmosphere which is what we are discussing here.

    8) Furthermore I have formed some doubts as to whether the concepts of UWIR and DWIR are anything other than mathematical constructs. I think that all they represent is the temperature of the atmosphere when it is in equilibrium at any given level. That temperature must be the net outcome of both UWIR and DWIR cancelling each other out in the atmospheric loop.

    9) So what happens if something interferes with the status quo and forces them out of balance? Composition changes in an atmosphere would do just that so there the AGW proponents must be correct. More greenhouse gases would indeed tend to favour one over the other but as I pointed out previously they actually favour UWIR over DWIR for a faster flow of energy to space and thus a net cooling effect. A portion of the UWIR released upward by GHGs gets out to space thereby escaping the atmospheric loop and reducing the total energy content between surface and top of atmosphere.

    10) Be that as it may the question then is what would be the system response if any imbalance did develop whether by way of more DWIR or less DWIR relative to UWIR?

    11) We have already established that the sole determinant of temperature is mass, gravity and insolation so there must be an effective negative system response otherwise atmospheres could not be retained long term.

    12) The answer is that due to any such imbalance the normal equilibrium distribution of Kinetic Energy (KE) and Potential Energy (PE) is upset and parcels of air start to move around differently relative to each other due to the changes in their respective KE and PE contents. Such changes in PE relative to KE result in density differences which cause different parcels of air to change their weights and rise or fall at different rates.

    13) Thus does the atmospheric circulation reconfigure itself to remove the imbalance by adjusting the energy flows through different sections of the atmosphere both vertically and horizontally. The balance of UWIR and DWIR between surface ad top of atmosphere is restored at every level and the atmosphere is rescued.

    14) Therefore, compositional changes have a zero net effect on temperature but the consequences are regional climate changes as the permanent climate zones change their sizes, intensities and positions relative to each other.

    15) Finally, what would be the effect of human emissions as a proportion of changes that happen naturally?

    16) On the basis of the facts set out in my three short articles it would be indistinguishable from zero.

  140. Trick says:

    Trick about a hunnert times above: “Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.”

    Stephen 12/6 9:49 pm once: “..the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR…”

    Agreed. Act of Congress. Obama and Boehner should study this thread.

    Stephen: “The ‘trick’ is to give solar energy a pass through…”

    Agreed. The net solar flux-in assumption is it does pass though atm. unabsorbed. Doesn’t have to, and in reality some solar does not pass thru atm. meaning some solar does get absorbed, just get a more complicated eqn. with DWIR having another flux term, solar another flux term, and agreement that much further off.

    Maybe even with this simple eqn. we get tallbloke on board.

    NB: “Trick” from finding HockeyFan gone far too often along with HatTrick, so shortened that to Trick for government work. Gretzky: “ The trick for scoring a goal is to go to where the puck is going to be, not to go where it is.” Want to see one? google “tic tac toe goal”.

    Also Gordie Howe Hat Trick which may be more applicable around the blogs “wherein a player scores a goal, records an assist, and gets in a fight all in one game.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordie_Howe_hat_trick

    Now an unofficial hockey stat., ha.

    Stephen 12:08 am: “Here is an article I put together…”

    Uh-oh. I’ll work on checking all that against “..the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR…”

  141. Trick says:

    tallbloke 7:32 pm: “I thought you were telling Stephen why ground emitted photons wouldn’t pass by co2 molecules in the air?”

    Yeah, I was, geez, simply a CO2 molecule going from its base level electronic energy state, absorbing 1 atm. IR photon, kicking a molecular electron up 1 discrete electron energy level. The top discrete level for the electron is infinity where electron no longer has an effect on the molecule which then has more protons than electrons – ionization – but takes extra kicks to get there, I didn’t say from where.

    Normally ionized CO2 not a discussion item in atm., except maybe in high altitude physics which is OT beyond simple stuff here. Bryan was kind enough to point that out, in a Bryan sort of way.

  142. Stephen Wilde says:

    “In reality some solar does not pass thru atm. meaning some solar does get absorbed,”

    Not quite.

    It only happened once when the gas molecules first rose from the surface. Since then it is the same amount of energy stuck in the loop being constantly recycled and it can only be added to or deducted from if one changes mass, gravity or insolation.

    In the meantime if there is no change in mass, insolation or gravity all solar input continues to get a pass through forever.

    I just proved that nothing else can slow down or speed up that solar throughput without unbalancing the UWIR / DWIR balance within the atmospheric loop and that if anything other than mass, gravity or insolation tries to do that then the consequent change is in the structure of the atmosphere and NOT the throuhgput of solar energy.

    therefore this does not apply:

    “just get a more complicated eqn. with DWIR having another flux term, solar another flux term, and agreement that much further off.”

    and so we remain in agreement, surely ?

    Current AGW theory relies upon slowing down the solar throughput.

    It cannot happen as a result of composition changes.

    It is exactly as I tried to set out many posts back but in purely verbal terms.

    End of game, I think and, thanks to Trick’s ‘ding’ moment I now have a person skilled at maths who sees the point.

  143. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:56 am: I just proved that nothing else can slow down or speed up that solar throughput without unbalancing the UWIR / DWIR balance”

    No.

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.

    The net solar flux-in is constant. If the “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained” is to hold, and the DWIR increases due to emissivity increase, then so MUST the UWIR increase, by simple LTE math. And that causes the surface temperature to increase to be radiating more UWIR.

    Since you have agreed to the ^ding^, you MUST agree to surface temperature going up with DWIR since to stay in balance UWIR just MUST go up. More later, I am timed out. Think how that affects your 12:08 post where you write agreeing to the ^ding^: “…UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”

    That means Tavg. must go measurably up by upward marching UWIR due to measurably increasing DWIR as I showed above.

  144. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    I think you are taking ‘surface’ at the wrong location.

    The ground is NOT the ‘surface’ for radiative energy transfer purposes.

    It should be regarded as being at the effective radiating level where UWIR and DWIR are equal within the atmospheric loop.

    That is somewhere up in the atmosphere and not at the ground and that is where the impacts of any imbalance occur.

    So, if composition changes cause an imbalance at that level (or at any level)l a kink in the lapse rate will be introduced such that it will become steeper below that point and shallower above that point or vice versa. The height of the effective radiating level will then rise or fall to restore the lapse rate overall from ground to space and that produces an equal and opposite effect on the energy flow.

    It is around the effective radiating level that the KE and PE balance is disrupted so all the adjustments are made within that region to prevent alterations in the ground temperature or top of atmosphere energy balance.

    To alter ground temperature one must increase mass, gravity or insolation.

    The KE and PE balance is redistributed to negate the kink in the lapse rate that would otherwise have upset the average slope of the lapse rate from ground to space. The height adjustment does the trick.

    Instead of the effective radiating height being at a colder temperature with less outgoing OLR as proposed by AGW theory the situation is exactly the reverse.

    The effective radiating height remains at the same temperature but rises higher which increases the flow of radiation to space as compared to what the rate of flow would have been from the lower level.

    If the effective radiating height were to fall to the ground then you have a planet with no atmosphere.

    The more mass in the atmosphere the higher the effective radiating height goes.

    Composition changes interfere with the height set by mass, gravity and insolation but the total amount of energy in the system cannot increase because that too is set only by mass, gravity and insolation so the system simply adjusts the effective radiating height to maintain equilibrium.

    Such an increase in height negates the effect of the composition change.

    The KE and PE adjustments completely cancel the radiative imbalance after a short while which returns the ground surface temperature and indeed the whole system to the previous equilibrium rather than a higher one.

    One can even envisage the attempts at disruption occurring in more than one layer at the same time from different composition changes and the adjustments around the effective radiating level smoothing them all out together.

    Taking just the stratosphere as an example, a composition change from a change in ozone amounts which is limited to the stratosphere would introduce a change in the slope of the lapse rate within the stratosphere. The vertical depth of the stratosphere would expand or contract.

    That change would try to transmit itself to and then past the effective radiating level and the UWIR / DWIR balance would be upset at that location.

    As before, the KE / PE distribution would be shuffled around to prevent the change in the stratosphere from upsetting the ideal lapse rate from ground to space. All the other different lapse rates in all the other layers would adjust their slopes to accommodate the change in the stratosphere without affecting ground temperature or top of atmosphere energy balance.

    Remember that this all must be so even if there are still flaws in my narrative otherwise Venus and Earth could not have such similar temperatures at the same pressure level.

  145. Stephen Wilde says:

    On Earth the ground temperature is prevented from changing by the thermal inertia of the oceans and by the water cycle which, acting together, can bring the effective radiating height down again but still with no change of temperature at the effective radiating height.

  146. Trick says:

    “The ground is NOT the ‘surface’ for radiative energy transfer purposes.”

    The atm. near the ground is all we can say. Not the dirt but the air. The height of the GHCN temperature readings.

    “It should be regarded as being at the effective radiating level where UWIR and DWIR are equal within the atmospheric loop.”

    They are never equal at the height of the thermometer readings. Not in theory; not in measurement. Check the readings; easy to do. At EEL, T=255K by satellite. Not Tavg.=288K at thermometer height.

  147. Trick says:

    “…otherwise Venus and Earth could not have such similar temperatures at the same pressure level.”

    P=density*R*T

    At same pressure level and temperature, the atm. density on Venus and Earth is of course the same. It is an ideal gas law. Same happens everywhere in Universe AFAIK. What would you expect to find? Something different? No.

    [Reply] Not only an ideal gas law, but an actual reality, despite Earth 0.039% co2 and Venus 95% co2.

  148. Stephen Wilde says:

    “They (UWIR and DWIR) are never equal at the height of the thermometer readings. Not in theory; not in measurement. Check the readings; easy to do. At EEL, T=255K by satellite. Not Tavg.=288K at
    thermometer height.”

    Never said they were.

    The difference between EEL and thermometer height can be anything depending on mass, gravity and insolation but NOT composition.

    The effects introduced by composition changes are wiped out by changes in the height of EEL and not the temperature of EEL so that the size of the difference can stay the same.

    UWIR and DWIR can only be equal at the effective radiating height.

    At the ground surface DWIR is at maximum and at top of atmosphere UWIR is at maximum. In between, the energy tied up in PE dominates and graduates the slope between the two locations in the form of the ideal lapse rate. but in practice composition variations can produce any number of irregularities in the slope between the two locations. Nonetheless the final net average of all the different slopes at different levels average out to the ideal lapse rate.

    But bear in mind that I consider the terms UWIR and DWIR to be meaningless because the actual temperature at any given level just reflects the KE available at that level and the lower one goes the more KE and the higher one goes the less KE.

    So what is your point ?

    You have simply sidestepped all the points made in my post of 9.34 am.

    Having felt that ‘ding’ moment are you having difficulty accepting the logical implications ?

  149. Stephen Wilde says:

    The fact is that solar energy always gets an unimpeded pass through such that changes in atmospheric composition simply do not slow down or speed up the solar throughput.

    Composition changes only affect the height of the EEL which remains at the same temperature throughout.

    The height of the EEL determines the rate at which energy can flow through the atmosphere so that if a composition change reduces that rate of flow the height of the EEL rises to cancel out that slowdown by speeding the rate of flow by an equal amount.

    If a composition change increases the rate of flow the height of the EEL falls to cancel out that increase by reducing the rate of flow by an equal amount.

    That is the only possible way that a stable ideal lapse rate could be maintained and you have already accepted that it must be maintained in order to keep a gaseous atmosphere in place.

  150. suricat says:

    Stephen Wilde says: December 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    “UWIR and DWIR can only be equal at the effective radiating height.”

    Surely not? Surely you describe the hight at which LTE, theoretically, exists? The “effective radiating height” must surely be the height at which the ‘average of Earth’s current IR sig.’ = ‘UWIR – DWIR’.

    If you do understand this, you’ll appreciate the ‘dynamism’ of this system. Its parameters can be seen to alter on a ‘minute by minute’ time scale in real time. This is why it’s so hard to ‘get to grips’ with a ‘radiative model’.

    “At the ground surface DWIR is at maximum and at top of atmosphere UWIR is at maximum. In between, the energy tied up in PE dominates and graduates the slope between the two locations in the form of the ideal lapse rate. but in practice composition variations can produce any number of irregularities in the slope between the two locations. Nonetheless the final net average of all the different slopes at different levels average out to the ideal lapse rate.”

    Averaging the activity of the ‘lapse rate’ generates a ‘comfortable feeling’ that obscures the mechanics of how it came to be. The ‘true lapse rate’ (environmental lapse rate [ELR]) can show greater understanding of how the ‘ideal lapse rate’ (ILR, or LR) came to be.

    We have a ‘closed system’ comprised of ‘mass’, which is driven by an ‘open system’ comprised of ‘EM radiation’. ‘Mass’ (in all its configurations) is an attractor of ‘EM energy’ (in all its forms [wavelengths])!

    “But bear in mind that I consider the terms UWIR and DWIR to be meaningless because the actual temperature at any given level just reflects the KE available at that level and the lower one goes the more KE and the higher one goes the less KE.”

    KE, and the above, PE, are properties of ‘mass’ and can only relate to configurations within the ‘mass system’. What of the ‘EM energy’ (in all of its ‘extant’ forms) that is attracted to the ‘mass’ at the altitude that the mass inhabits?

    It’s a bit more complex, isn’t it. ;)

    Best regards, Ray.

  151. suricat says:

    Just a thought Stephen. Your acceptance of “UWIR and DWIR can only be equal at the effective radiating height.” is a first step towards the recognition of a GHE (of sorts). :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  152. Stephen Wilde says:

    I do accept a GHE of sorts but it isn’t affected by GHGs.

  153. suricat says:

    Oh come on, be fair! It is, just not as much as most people think. ;) :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  154. Trick says:

    Stephen 12/7 6:24 pm: “The difference between EEL and thermometer height can be anything depending on mass, gravity and insolation but NOT composition.”

    No Stephen, not in science. Inspect the EEL height derivation. The composition of the atm. matters in the basic science eqn. developed for finding the height of EEL as it must. Specifically the density of the atm. IR absorbers/emitters is an important factor in the EEL height & pressure derivation for optically thick atm. Just look it up. Report back.

    Stephen continues: “So what is your point ?”

    My point is that Stephen has come to agree with science in that atm. composition matters in addition to mass, gravity and insolation for planetary Tavg. near surface when in balance at LTE since Stephen now agrees with textbook science: “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” In equation form:

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE.

    So that as DWIR increases due an increase in the density of the absorbers in the atm. composition optically thick atm., so must UWIR in excess of solar throughput increase to always match increase DWIR if the atm. is to be retained and it does that by Tavg. increase and the density of the absorbers increasing EEL mathematically & physically measured by satellites to a pressure level a smidge lower and thus a smidge slightly cooler at that pressure height. All in the basic science that has been around a long while and as measured by satellites/atm. sounding probes.

    Stephen continues: “You have simply sidestepped all the points made in my post of 9.34 am.”

    Yeah, the science is a mess in them. I will clean them up with the right textbook based basic science based on Stephen being in agreement with texts when he writes “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    1) “..at the same atmospheric pressure the temperatures within the atmospheres of both Earth and Venus are much the same. Their vastly differing atmospheric compositions make no difference” Planet atm. density adjusted for difference in orbit, Stephen gets this right, the ideal gas law holds on Venus and Earth. That is how they got Venus atm. specifics from probes.
    2) “the sole determinants of surface temperature are mass, gravity and insolation.” Not in science, Stephen just learned the science shows composition of the atm. matters to maintain balance too when he writes to clarify “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”
    3) Stephen gets the science right in 3) except greenhouse gases are from resident cats with digestive issues. Infrared active gas density composition of the atm. is really what matters in an optically thick atm.
    4) Temperature Tavg. near the surface is not just controlled by mass, gravity, insolation since Stephen just agreed the atmosphere composition also matters since he writes in agreement with basic science: “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
    5) Stephen just worked out why this must be so where he writes; “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR” meaning atm. composition matters. Atm. composition affects the DWIR which then forces UWIR to a new balance at LTE at a different Tavg. near surface temperature and affecting the EEL pressure height.
    6) UWIR and DWIR cannot cancel out near the surface because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
    7) UWIR and DWIR cannot cancel out near the surface because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
    8) UWIR and DWIR are more than mathematical constructs, they are measured everyday at multiple locations by engineers calibrating instruments to +/- 2 W/m^2 one pointed up, the other pointed down at the same height as the GHCN thermometers,
    9) UWIR and DWIR almost never measured the same by engineers at the diverse locations at different altitudes and regions. At LTE, in & out energy remains in balance with different near surface Tavg. as it has for eons. Or we would not be here observing it.
    10) The Earth system is stable, it manages to change the Tavg. near the surface stably over eons.
    11) Stephen just learned there is a 4th determinate: atm. composition because “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
    12) Is fine, none of these affects crosses the balanced big picture control volume at TOA. Potential temperature of near surface on average changes w/atm. composition to keep balance for eons.
    13) Be precise Stephen, the important point is atm. Tavg. near surface changes to restore the balance and save the atm. UWIR and DWIR are not in balance near the surface, check the eqn. above since “UWIR for the purpose of this article applies only to upward UWIR that exceeds the solar flux because it is only that portion of total UWIR that is required to cancel DWIR.”
    14) Atm. compositional changes affect the DWIR which then affects the UWIR to restore balance as Stephen writes at a new near surface Tavg.
    15) THAT is the best question. I dunno, others are working on it. Stay tuned.
    16) Maybe no general agreement Tavg. changing near surface is measurable today within CI, but that is no proof; since the atm. composition changes every day, the experiment continues, may be measurable some day in the future with improved methods and instruments. Keep working folks.

    Stephen doesn’t agree? Look up the science Stephen before you report back – like I did; my list is based on basic science as Stephen writes “UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” I gave the relevant references in the thread to save you the trouble but feel free to find your own. And again no warranty on my typo.s, point ‘em out for an across the board reward… They happen. Deal with it.

  155. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    I’ve worked out what is missing from your scenario.

    Stay tuned.

  156. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Oh come on, be fair! It is, just not as much as most people think”

    True, up to a point, but it is the circulation that changes and not the temperature.

    You don’t necessarily need a rise in surface temperature to cause a circulation change if the imbalance is in the atmosphere rather than at the surface.

    All will become clear :)