.
Some useful discussion in comments below Anders post. Pekka says:
“The radiative height is determined directly by the GHG concentrations and effects of clouds, tropopause height is not sensitive to GHG concentrations and depends more on thermodynamics of air and convection.”
I should start by saying that this post was partly motivated by an intersting comment from Pekke Pirila on another thread. Also, Eli already has a post that mostly cover this, so this is more from completeness, than anything else.
In a number of my recent posts, I’ve been referring to an effective emission height in the atmosphere that is set by the greenhouse gas concentration. Given that the tropospheric temperature gradient (lapse rate) is largely set by convection, if you know the temperature at some height in the atmosphere, then one can work back down the lapse to the surface in order to determine the surface warming due to greenhouse effect. I haven’t, however, really defined this effective emission height. In equilibrium, the Earth radiates as much energy back into space per unit time as it receives from the Sun. If you determine the average amount of energy…
View original post 566 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
suricat 1:43am: Bingo.
Trick says: March 18, 2014 at 1:50 am
“suricat 1:43am: Bingo.”
God does not play ‘dice’! 😉
Neither do I, I just discuss with my peers.
I’m gob-smacked that this ‘preview’ was enabled. Any correspondence should be ‘in thread’!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:43 am
————————————
No ray, the question is completely fair. The Church of Radiative Climatology has many times claimed a figure of -18C Tmean for the surface of the planet in the absence of an atmosphere. It’s no good saying that they made the calc for a non-radiative atmosphere including evaporation, they quite simply did not do this. What they did was use an emissivity figure of 0.96 for the oceans, use 0.3 as albedo and calculate a “blackbody” surface temperature using a constant ¼ power sun providing ~240 w/m2. The figure they claim is around 255K, well below freezing.
Argument about evaporative cooling is irrelevant. 71% of the surface of our planet is ocean and its response to solar SW must be considered. “Evaporation” or “the oceans would boil off without atmospheric pressure” are hand waving. The issue here is that the Church of Radiative Climatology has applied S-B instantaneous radiative flux equations to the surface of a planet of which 71% is transparent and heated at depth by incoming solar SW. As empirical experiment shows the response of materials opaque to IR but transparent to SW cannot be calculated from just incident w/m2 alone. Incident radiation frequency is critical, mass is critical, diurnal cycle is critical and speed of non-radiative transport within the material is critical. They used blackbody calcs on transparent oceans. The pre evaporative or conductive cooling error in how hot the sun could make our oceans resulting from their calcs is ~98C. That’s -18C compared to 80C?! No hand waving will make this better.
Empirical experiment shows a figure around 80C for oceans if they could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere. What does adding an atmosphere do to this figure? What is the atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism?
Requesting a one word answer to this question –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
– is entirely fair. Trick knows the answer, but just like it. After all giving the correct answer means “game over” for AGW 😉
Konrad 1:22, 2:35am: “Word games are fun, but how about some actual physics? …It’s no good saying that they made the calc for a non-radiative atmosphere including evaporation, they quite simply did not do this”
Physics? You can’t handle the physics, son. A transparent atm. and earth are a two body problem. A spinning round rock emissivity 1.0, rounded, wrapped in a windy standard fluid 0.0 emissivity held hydrostatic in a gravity field orbiting the sun.
The rock is diabatically warmed by the sun and cools to deep space 240 W/m^2 in and 240 W/m^2 out temporal and spatial mean. LTE rock surface Tmean = 255K by 1st law. EEH is 0′ AGL. Ignore the rock’s 0.1 W/m^2 it only means like 0.1K and a couple Planck lengths AGL for the EEH.
Evaporation cools the surface, rain warms the atm. in like amount. Calculations are not needed except for time constant. The rock feels both from atm. conduction slowly returns T balance over time. No effect on Tmean. The process is adiabatic, does not move any LH to deep space, doesn’t rain in space.
The fluid feels the temperature T=255K at the interface control volume and has approx. -g/Cp lapse up to TOA where when the last gas molecule loses the last KE climbing and gains the max. PE not enough energy to escape where T=2.7K from CMB.
A smokeless Volcano pops off some lava, then stops. This is known as a small perturbation. The atm. gets a small kick from some more energy; the rock feels this energy by conduction/convection. Moves up to 353.15K, lapse starts from there, rock radiates out more than the 240W/m^2 it is getting from sun.
The surface loses total energy fast as Stephen so adroitly wrote, starts to cool & system converges to 255K, conducting energy from atm. and radiating it to space fast. After maybe an eon of slow conduction convergence maybe some oscillations from/to atm. rock settles in again at steady state LT equilibrium Tmean=255K.
Then a smokeless Volcano pops off again. Repeat. There just isn’t enough solar net energy to get the rock surface to stay at Konrad’s 80C and beyond in long term equilibrium unless Volcanos continuously pop off.
I’ve used 1) the 1st law, 2) surface emissivity 1.0 rounded, 3) net solar constant 4) windy hydrostatic conditions 5) no underpants gnomes stealing/adding any energy, 6) normal rain/LH accounting
Your experiments need to prove:
1) the 1st law is wrong,
2) Many surface L&O emissivity 1.0 rounded measurements by many different authors are all wrong
3) Volcanoes don’t exist to kick or supply continuous energy, or the sun finds out about the 1 volcano kick and reacts to increase its output to maintain 353.15K feeling slighted
4) Hydrostatic windy conditions can fuel a fire
5) Underpants gnomes exist but no weasels exist
6) It rains in space.
No weaseling out now. Which one? Hey you can pick all six have been experimentally proved wrong, I’m easy. Explain. No warranty, check my work.
Ding !
Following on from my earlier posts it just occurred to me that no gaseous atmosphere can ever cause the surface temperature beneath it to fall below the S-B temperature.
The reason being that energy transmission through a gas by way of conduction and convection is always slower than direct radiation.
For a gas to prevent the S-B temperature from being reached it would have to cause energy to flow through faster than radiation which is impossible.
What then of albedo ?
It turns out that albedo only affects the distance that the surface temperature can rise above that predicted by the S-B equation.
The surface temperature enhancement will therefore be higher for a transparent atmosphere than for an opaque atmosphere.
The reason being that more conduction (to the gases from the surface) can occur if a greater proportion of the incoming energy reaches the surface.
The more reflective is the atmosphere the less radiation will reach the surface, the less conduction will occur and the smaller the surface temperature enhancement will be.
For a fully opaque atmosphere there would be nothing reaching the surface, no conduction from surface to atmosphere and no thermal enhancement.
Radiative theory proposes that the convection resulting from conduction has a net cooling effect but I have shown in my earlier post why there is no net surface cooling from adiabatic circulation.
The reason is that all energy uplifted adiabatically comes back down adiabatically.
It therefore follows that adiabatic convection has no effect on the amount of surface thermal enhancement.
Convection (in so far as it is adiabatic) neither warms nor cools the surface
The sole determinant as to how high the surface enhancement can rise for a given mass of atmosphere is albedo and the enhancement is highest at full transparency.
Radiative theory proposes that greater atmospheric opacity has a cooling effect due to reflective capability and so it does, but only down from the higher surface enhancement that could have been achieved with full transparency.
The fact that the surface enhancement is greater if the atmosphere is transparent ‘proves’ the dominance of mass as the cause of that surface enhancement.
Only if the maximum amount of conduction can occur from surface to atmospheric mass can the maximum thermal enhancement at the surface be achieved and the maximum amount of conduction occurs with full transparency.
It follows that with maximum transparency and maximum surface thermal enhancement there will also be maximum convection.
As I said many times previously, you have to have maximum convection in a transparent, non radiative atmosphere in order to get energy back to the ground fast enough for radiation to space to match incoming radiation.
Introducing radiative capability reduces transparency, reduces the surface thermal enhancement by reducing total conduction from surface to atmosphere and does not require such a vigorous convective circulation to achieve radiative balance with space.
The reality is that transparent non radiative atmospheres warm surfaces more than opaque atmospheres and radiative, gases by introducing opacity, cool surfaces below that which would have been achieved in their absence.
Both of those propositions are the opposite of radiative theory.
It also follows that the greater is the atmospheric mass the more conduction there will be and the higher the surface enhancement will rise at a given level of atmospheric transparency.
The surface temperature is a result of mass and transparency.Nothing to do with radiative fluxes
More atmospheric mass can compensate for a reduction in transparency.
Opacity reduces the amount of conduction that can occur but more mass increases it again.
That solves the conundrum as to why some planets with opaque atmosphere but a high mass have much greater surface temperatures relative to their distance from the sun than does Earth.
Venus and Uranus, due to their opaque atmospheres might have less solar radiation reaching the surface (which reduces conduction and the surface thermal enhancement) but the amount of mass more than compensates so they have much larger surface thermal enhancements than planets like Earth and Mars.
Trick says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:04 am
“Physics? You can’t handle the physics, son.”
——————————————————–
Oh please, just what is that going to achieve? Would a weasel know physics if it leapt up and bit him in the haunches? 😉
Here’s a clue – maths is not physics. Real physicists may use maths, but only if it can be used to approximately model real physical phenomena. Many people claim to understand physics when all they have done is rote learn some of the math used by real physicists. This is exactly what is going on with the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology. They don’t actually understand radiative physics let alone fluid dynamics. You do not really understand physics Trick, this is why you keep running back to your S-B calculations that you hold so dear. You don’t know anything else and you can’t work out what experiments dealing with fluid dynamics or non-radiative energy transport are showing you.
I am showing how to build and run empirical experiments on the effect of solar SW on transparent materials like our oceans which you don’t have the physics to understand, so in your panic you run back to this –
“There just isn’t enough solar net energy to get the rock surface to stay at Konrad’s 80C and beyond in long term equilibrium”
– now just where did I say the sun could drive a rock surface to an equilibrium temperature of 80C? Nowhere that’s where! This is just pathetic Trick. The question you were challenged with was entirely about our transparent oceans. Nothing about rock, nothing at all. After all, why would rock have any relevance? 71% of our planet is covered in deep transparent oceans!
What was that, your sixth or seventh evasion? Evaporation this time was it? Just how was that supposed to work for an ocean that is a block of ice at -18C? No, don’t bother answering that…
Here is the basic physics question again –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
Stephen Wilde says: March 18, 2014 at 3:24 am
“Ding !”
High five Stephen.
Best regards, Ray.
It’s after Zulu 04:30 hrs. in my time zone. I need zeds.
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad 4:09am proves can’t handle the physics 1-6 issues his experiments must show is wrong instead we are treated to: ”…now just where did I say the sun could drive a rock surface to an equilibrium temperature of 80C?”
Well I did not think of that one: Konrad 1:22am: ”…(oceans) would reach ~80C via solar SW alone, not -18C…”
7) Konrad’s experiments will have to prove “transparent atm. and earth” two body contains no ocean surfaces, are not counted in the 255K L&O earth surface emissivity 1.0 rounded thingie. Where ARE these 80C ocean surfaces then Konrad if not on the surface of the rock?
Want to add #8?
Trick says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:55 am
“Want to add #8?”
———————————
I think you just did. 😉
That was your eighth attempt to deflect and evade answering the simple physics question –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
And you tried it with this –
“Where ARE these 80C ocean surfaces then Konrad if not on the surface of the rock?”
Why on earth did you think that could possibly work? The oceans average around 2000m deep. SW and UV are typically absorbed fully in the first 200m. Rock at the bottom of the ocean is totally irrelevant here. What were you thinking?!
Besides climate scientists did not calculate their S-B temperature for the surface without radiative atmosphere based on the rock below the oceans. Claiming they did that would be an outright lie. They were just so incredibly stupid that they used the IR emissivity of the oceans, and a figure of 240 w/m2 for incoming solar and tried to calc the temperature of the oceans using S-B calculations. There is no hand waving that gets you around it. They were that incredibly stupid.
Maybe you should stop with the evasions and attempted condescension about physics you don’t understand and try to understand this –
“As empirical experiment shows the response of materials opaque to IR but transparent to SW cannot be calculated from just incident w/m2 alone.”
Once you understand that basic physics (maybe try an empirical experiment if your text books can’t help 😉 ) then you could have a ninth go at giving a clear and direct answer to this question –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
Trick: “The rock is diabatically warmed by the sun and cools to deep space 240 W/m^2 in and 240 W/m^2 out temporal and spatial mean. LTE rock surface Tmean = 255K by 1st law.2
The figure is wildly incorrect. The Moon’s average surface temperature at the equator has been empirically measured to be around 214k. By doing a proper integration N&Z showed the overall average to be around 198K. The Apollo astronauts placed thermometers into the regolith and found the subsurface average at around 40N to be around 237K. The moon has an albedo around 0.12. The Earth has an albedo around 0.3.
So, you can’t you derive 255K “from the first law”.
And I have a question for you. You talk of a “control volume at the surface”. Surfaces have no volume, so how deep are you going, and what is the heat capacity you are using?
Stephen Wilde says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:24 am
“The reason being that energy transmission through a gas by way of conduction and convection is always slower than direct radiation.”
That’s a little like saying that you can fill a pond faster with a pressure washer than by diverting a creek to it. Sure, the fluid velocity is a lot faster, but the mass flow rate is comparatively puny.
Bart.
Doesn’t matter what the flow rate through the mass is by way of conduction because convection rapidly converts any excess conducted energy at the surface to PE during the first adiabatic cycle.
You don’t have to wait for conduction to creep upwards or downwards molecule by molecule. The delay in energy throughput gets reduced to the length of the convective cycle.
Anyway, consider the general principle.
The Greenhouse Effect is caused by mass but the scale of it is affected by transparency.
Full transparency gives the maximum conductive surface warming. Full opacity gives none at all.
The S-B equation gives only the minimum surface temperature for a rock at a given distance from a sun.
Radiative gases reduce transparency which means they must lower the greenhouse effect of mass on the surface temperature
I see no way out of that for the radiative theory.
Suricat gets it.
Minimum average surface temperature, that is.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:06 am
————————————
Stephen you keep referring to S-B temperatures. If you would just do as I suggest (run the empirical experiments) you would also understand that the climate pseudo scientists should take their crazed claims about the oceans and the atmosphere and just….Stefan up their Boltzmann 😉
Don’t get diverted by issues over the actual temperatures achieved by rocks in space.
The S-B calculation is the minimum average temperature at a given distance from a sun for a pure blackbody.
Surface properties will detract from the blackbody characteristics from rock to rock and even different locations on the rock so the actual minimum average for a given rock is a matter for measurement rather than slavish adherence to S-B.
An atmosphere will always raise that temperature whether it has GHGs or not.
Pure blackbodies instantaneously equilibriate the temperature across their entire surface. Space rocks (large ones) and planets don’t.
[Edit] Good to see Stephen clarified that point.
The volume under consideration near the surface matters, as do it’s properties. The lunar subsurface is warmer on average than the surface, due to reduction of diurnal swings in T. This implies that rate of rotation matters to average surface T. For Earth even more so, as equilibriation depends on horizontal air movement, which affects evaporation rate from the ocean surface.
I understand why Stephen advises us not to get hug up on the complexity of the system. I agree an atmosphere will cause the surface underlying it to reach a higher eq T whether or not it contains GHG’s. But to appreciate why that is the case, some of the complexity of the circulation set up by the different scenarios needs to be explained.
Oh dear, I think we have lost Trick. Were the masters at SKS upset? Did they unleash the underpants weasels of which Trick was so afeared?
Trick, If you are still out there, this one goes out to you –
TB said:
” some of the complexity of the circulation set up by the different scenarios needs to be explained.”
I agree that worked out examples for differing scenarios would provide the necessary evidence to prove the case but a little knowledge of thermodynamics goes a long way.
One can see how simple it is at base just by two observations:
I) The surface temperature must rise above S-B before uplift can occur.
ii) It only takes one convective cycle for the surface temperature to stabilise at a point higher than S-B would predict and that new temperature is related to the amount of atmospheric mass available to absorb energy from the surface.
tb 7:39am: “The (255K) figure is wildly incorrect.”
How? Show your work. Or have a cite? This you simply assert. It is wildly different than modern text books including Bohren 2006 p. 33 I cited & linked above, you need extraordinary proof.
The 1st law balance for the transparent atm. moon has a different & lower result than transparent atm. earth Tmean 255K from text books because the moon’s surface emissivity is shown to be far below that of earth. That’s all. I just showed at least one physical reason is in the trap for unwary S-B users. This should unfold in time if knowing the Tmean of moon’s entire surface remains of academic interest.
“…how deep are you going, and what is the heat capacity you are using?”
Control volumes are fun and so very useful. My thermo. prof. insisted every discussion begin with step 1: “Draw a control volume…” I was so irritated at the time, but bless him now. Can arbitrarily draw them wherever you want.
Think of applying the concept of Earth’s surface control volume to the Stephenson boxes from top to bottom where the thermometers are located ~1.5m AGL. Count up the energy coming in and going out at that level. In this way, heat capacity is that of air. The mass of interest being the mass of air in that CV for DT/dt calc.s at the surface.
Much confusion exists from those not drawing proper control volume.
Konrad 5:32am responds with nothing of physics substance since he has nothing of substance to respond with. Resorts entirely to child’s play. I haven’t yet got thru that his question isn’t well posed for the 9th time. Here, maybe a simple example works. (I doubt it but…)
Konrad – the hockey team I follow scored 2 goals the other night. Did they win or lose? Simple question. I’m interested to know in a simple 1 word answer. Well, what is it? Win or lose?
******
“….then you could have a ninth go at giving a clear and direct answer to this question -“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
Step 1: Draw a control volume. Step 2: Apply 1st law as described by Stephen. I like the CV around the Stephenson screens from top to bottom. Then please refer to the clear and direct answer I already provided upthread 3/17 11:56pm:
Very powerful that Stephen epiphany. If you want more of an answer than 1 word, absent LW DWIR, more surface area of Earth oceans would freeze seasonally, ocean surface would not freeze near the equator. I’ll look around to see if there is an estimate if you like.
Stephen 9:27am: “An atmosphere will always raise that temperature whether it has GHGs or not.”
Concur. Simply shown in basic text book physics from application of your 3/17 6:45pm epiphany after Step. 1 – Draw a system control volume, then Step 2 apply:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
Same as Callendar showed 1938 (3/17 7:19pm post) once an atm. exists – basic physics are very useful as IR active gas is increased even with Sir George Simpson’s winds moving energy around inside the CV.
Konrad says, March 18, 2014 at 2:35 am:
“No ray, the question is completely fair. The Church of Radiative Climatology has many times claimed a figure of -18C Tmean for the surface of the planet in the absence of an atmosphere. It’s no good saying that they made the calc for a non-radiative atmosphere including evaporation, they quite simply did not do this.”
That’s probably true, Konrad, but it is the only interesting (relevant) comparison: Global mean surface temp below an atmosphere WITH radiative gases vs. one WITHOUT radiative gases.
In their world, the physical presence of an atmosphere on top of the surface in itself doesn’t matter at all. To them, only its radiative properties matter – is it transparent or opaque to outgoing terrestrial IR?
It is this idea that is so easy to refute, since everyone (should) know that as soon as you put air around a heated object, there will quite naturally and automatically be a substantial energy loss through conductive/convective processes and hence it would be impossible for a planet finding itself in the same situation to radiate the entire flux of 239 W/m^2 absorbed from the Sun directly back out to space from its surface at 255K (the S-B corresponding BB emission temperature).
It is that simple.
I find your dabbling in the extremely (taken to the point of absurdity) hypothetical situation drawn up by the ‘Climate Masters’ where the Earth apparently has no atmosphere at all but still manages to support an ocean not as instructive, rather more confusing. Simply because it isn’t just unlikely; it could never be a real situation.
It is, I would say, an intuitive truth that the oceans would be warmer with a heavier atmosphere on top of them and with equal solar input, simply because their heat loss through evaporation would be suppressed.
So the weight of the atmosphere matters. The very presence of a massive atmosphere on top of a constantly heated surface will force this surface to accumulate energy and thereby become warmer than without (it would also spread the heat, so as to even out temperatures, but that’s a different matter). In purely radiative terms, of course, the atmosphere have a net cooling effect on the surface, but this effect is completely overwhelmed by the induced warming effect of its weight on the surface.
Stephen 9:27am: “An atmosphere will always raise that temperature whether it has GHGs or not.”
Is not correct if the surface temperature has been substantially ABOVE the temperature where an equilibrium exists between incoming and outgoing energy.
This is the situation on earth. We have been cooling down the last 84 million years.
The atmosphere is reducing the heat loss to space as best as it can, and still we cool down
Ben 2:15pm: ” Is not correct if the surface temperature has been substantially ABOVE the temperature where an equilibrium exists between incoming and outgoing energy.”
Ben – Good point. An improvement is needed since the unwritten assumption is starting from steady state equilibrium. Suggest:
“Given a body at steady state surface Tmean equilibrium orbiting a star, adding an atmosphere will always raise that temperature whether it has GHGs or not.”
because:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
“Is not correct if the surface temperature has been substantially ABOVE the temperature where an equilibrium exists between incoming and outgoing energy.”
Doesn’t matter what the starting point is before the atmosphere gets put in place. I pointed out that it would never be identical to S-B since no rock in space is a perfect blackbody. That deals with any supplemental heat from geothermal as well.
The surface temperature rises when an atmosphere is added in accordance only with mass and transparency. Any internal system radiative fluxes are then a mere by product and not a cause of anything.
Ben 2:15pm: ” Is not correct if the surface temperature has been substantially ABOVE the temperature where an equilibrium exists between incoming and outgoing energy.”
Ben – Good point.
Great, next conclusion is that for the last 84 million years the atmosphere has not been adding anything to the surface temperature, since we have been living ABOVE the equilibrium temperature.
Question is at what temperature the equilibrium WILL be reached.
My best guess is a lot below our present temperatures.
Stephen 2:47pm: “Doesn’t matter what the starting point is before the atmosphere gets put in place.”
Were this true, we would still have molten rock under foot after the 1st earth atm. was put in place. Ben is correct, if starting T too high, the T comes down to equilibrium Tmean. If starting T too low, the T comes up to equilibrium Tmean.
This shows why & you can go far with it:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
“I pointed out that it would never be identical to S-B since no rock in space is a perfect blackbody.”
This is true but the computed transparent atm. 255K is different only a miniscule amount from real emissivity. Similar no real gas is ideal but you don’t complain about pV=nRT not being perfect. If I get a chance, will compute 255K more accurately to show you.
suricat says:
March 16, 2014 at 3:37 am
Kristian says: March 15, 2014 at 11:46 pm
Reading into this “The tropopause is where it is because of convection.”.
No it isn’t! “The tropopause is where it is because of” THE TRIPLE POINT OF WATER!!!
Please see this link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg
I am not aware of any thermodynamic calculation of the height and temperature of the tropical tropopause. That is 20km and – (70-75 )C = 200K
I agree with suricat, they cause of the tropopause is found in the H2O phase diagram. Not the triple point but the bottom line. At low pressure, below 1pa. and below -200K, water must change from liquid to solid. This does not happen because there is not sufficient density of H20 to form ice crystals ( snow ).
Even if there were molten rock beneath the atmosphere the atmosphere would still enhance the temperature further as compared to no atmosphere so it really doesn’t matter what the starting point is as long as it is not so hot as to blow the atmosphere off into space.
Focus on he main point rather than going off at pernickety tangents.
The surface must rise above S-B prediction before convection can begin if an atmosphere is added to a solid surfaced rock in space.
The size of the increase will be a balance between atmospheric mass and transparency.
Radiative considerations are only relevant to the extent to which the temperature rises above S-B and since radiative molecules increase opacity they reduce the size of the increase above S-B so in fact they have a cooling effect.
That is fatal to AGW theory.
Ben Wouters says, March 18, 2014 at 2:15 pm:
“This is the situation on earth. We have been cooling down the last 84 million years.
The atmosphere is reducing the heat loss to space as best as it can, and still we cool down”
Ben, mean global solar input to the surface (energy IN) is affected by albedo, mean global evaporation and convection rates from the surface (energy OUT) is affected by atmospheric weight. Both are in turn affected by the constellation of land vs. ocean around our planet – the spreading of heat from the tropics towards the poles, cloud cover, pressure cell strength (winds) and so forth.
In other words, there is nothing in what you say that goes against the GENERAL PRINCIPLE we’re talking about here.
Kristian says:
March 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm
————————————————-
“but it is the only interesting (relevant) comparison: Global mean surface temp below an atmosphere WITH radiative gases vs. one WITHOUT radiative gases.”
And that Kristian, is entirely the point of the question!
Because a non-radiative atmosphere has no way to cool itself it cannot possibly be cool the oceans.
“I find your dabbling in the extremely (taken to the point of absurdity) hypothetical situation drawn up by the ‘Climate Masters’ where the Earth apparently has no atmosphere at all but still manages to support an ocean not as instructive, rather more confusing. Simply because it isn’t just unlikely; it could never be a real situation.”
The whole point of this experiment –
Is to show what would happen if all atmospheric processes excepting pressure are removed from over the oceans. Hand waving about pressure is irrelevant, because according to the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology the water sample in the experiment should be frozen solid, therefore pressure is not an issue.
That type of experiment is indeed instructive as it sidelines all atmospheric circulation and radiation games and players. Notice how effective the question is, Trick has tried nine times to evade it without giving a simple answer. But the answer is simple – our oceans will not freeze without radiative gases in the atmosphere. The net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling. As a non-radiative atmosphere has no way to cool itself it cannot possibly provide the same cooling.
You can run back to atmospheric circulation and ERL games if you like but if you do as the Church of Radiative Climatology does and apply S-B equations to any part of our land, ocean or atmosphere then you will never get the right answer.
And the right answer?
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
And because the oceans cover 71% of the planets surface, nothing else is relevant. The net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm, therefore global warming is a physical impossibility.
Trick says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:27 pm
“If you want more of an answer than 1 word, absent LW DWIR, more surface area of Earth oceans would freeze seasonally, ocean surface would not freeze near the equator.”
—————————————————————————————-
No Trick, that won’t work either. You have gone full circle and ended up back in 2011. The simplest empirical experiment shows DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool –
To understand why the sun is quite capable of heating our oceans without invoking the sacred DWLWIR of the Church of Radiative Climatology you just need to run this very, very simple experiment –
To fully understand the unbelievably stupid error in the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology you just need to run one further variant –
– run the experiment illuminating blocks A & B with 500 watts of SW radiation until they reach their respective equilibrium temperatures.
– Now run the experiment again using 500 watts of LWIR radiation.
Same power of radiation, yet two very different results. Guess what? You don’t need any maths to explain the difference, just an actual understanding of physics.
Now if you could just answer the question –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
(correctly this time) then we could move on to the far more exciting question –
“what is the primary cooling mechanism for our atmosphere?”
or is this the real question you are desperately trying to avoid? 😉
suricat says, March 16, 2014 at 3:37 am:
“I think Stephen has confused you on the issues of ‘back radiation’ and ‘convection’ Kristian.”
Really?
“If we take a ‘mass of dry air’ (no H2O) and surround it with an ‘impenetrable boundary to all modes of heat/energy transfer’, we find that; expanding the volume of the ‘mass’ lowers the internal temperature, pressure and density. However, if we return the ‘mass’ to its ‘original volume’, the ‘original’ temperature, pressure and density are restored.”
Er, yes. And that is because of work being done BY the ‘mass’ during expansion and of work being done ON the ‘mass’ during compression. Same amount of energy going OUT/IN.
“This ‘isn’t’ convection, its the behaviour of an ‘adiabat’!”
Yup. Adiabatic cooling/heating involves ‘work’ and no ‘heat’.
“Convection is only evident when the ‘KE’ is increased WRT the ‘KE’:’PE’ ratio at low altitude!
In the real world, an increase of ‘KE’ (only to ‘the mass’) forces expansion of ‘the mass’ against its surrounding environment. This results in an expansion to the volume of ‘the mass’ which results in an ‘~unaltered temperature’ (radiation reduces thermal energy from ‘the mass’) and an associated change in density. This is the ‘pertinent point’ of/for ‘convection’ per se.”
I must ask, suricat: Where did you get the idea that I confuse the convective with the adiabatic process?
“No it isn’t! “The tropopause is where it is because of” THE TRIPLE POINT OF WATER!!!
Please see this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg
from the wikipedia page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point
where you’ll realise that both ice and water vapour are ‘lighter’ than liquid water, thus, the ‘tropospheric barrier’ to H2O in it’s ‘water phase’ exists at altitudes that exclude the ‘fluid’ form of H2O at these altitudes/temperatures. Namely, ‘The Tropopause’!”
suricat, I have to ask you the same question I asked Stephen: Why do you think the tropopause is so high in the tropics and so much lower at high latitudes? Because of this difference, the tropical tropopause is both much colder AND sees much lower air pressures than at temperate latitudes. Why do you think that is? And why is the tropopause higher in the summer hemisphere than in the winter hemisphere, effectively nonexistent in the polar regions in winter?
Clue: It all involves surface heating. And you know what process is driven by surface heating? Convection.
Here’s an interesting post on just this topic by Chiefio: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
Bart says, March 16, 2014 at 7:17 am:
Radiative physics predicts that it [‘back radiation’] can [warm the surface of the Earth]. And, these principles are well established. It is how this stuff works. And, it does work. Every single minute of every single day on hundreds of satellites whizzing above your head.”
Er, no, Bart. If you believe this, then I’m afraid you’ve been had. ‘Radiative physics’ predicts no such thing. The Climate Masters that invented the magical sibling of real physics called ‘Climate Physics’ alone predicts that.
Look, when an object warms another object, there is no way that the same energy emitted from the first object (the source of the energy transfer) as an energy loss, can come back from the second, dependent object (the receiver of the energy transfer) as an extra energy gain to heat the source some more. This would violate both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You see this violation most evidently when you include a third body to the problem, a heat source to the heat source. Because if the process being described (the exchange of energy between the two objects, where both objects supposedly absorb the energy from the other one for direct energy gain) were indeed an actual, physically real process, then adding a constant external energy input to the object warming the other one, would make the energy returning from the other one the SOLE reason for the increase in internal energy and hence the rise in temperature of the warming object. And that would constitute a HEAT transfer from cold to hot.
If you start out, for instance, with an Earth surface with a non-radiative atmosphere on top absorbing a solar flux of 239 W/m^2, warming to 255K and then as a result giving off a flux of 239 W/m^2 back out to space. Then you make the atmosphere opaque to the outgoing radiation (you put so-called GHGs into it), so that it hypothetically absorbs the entire flux of 239 W/m^2 and sends half of it back down. In this case you would claim that the surface now receives a total flux of (239+119.5=) 358.5 W/m^2 raising its temperature to 282K.
So what energy flux did the warming here? You did not increase the solar one, it was still 239 W/m^2. You did not reduce the outgoing one, it was still 239 W/m^2. What you did was ADDING an extra flux to the surface, increasing its internal energy, warming it.
The flux from the cooler atmosphere warmed directly the warmer surface, its heat source. HEAT from cold to hot.
This does not work in nature. You can not heat (in absolute terms) an object hotter than you by transferring your energy to it. That is a ridiculous notion. And nowhere in the world of REAL physics is this ever suggested. What happens in real-world situations is that you make the temp difference between you and it less by yourself getting a little warmer. Hence, the energy flowing from IT to you would be smaller. This is the situation that for instance the general radiative heat transfer equation describes: P/A = e*s (T_1^4 – T_2^4). P/A, the HEAT, is the only ‘real’ flow of energy here (and the only one ever detected) and it changes as soon as there’s a change in the temperature of either object 1 or 2.
So you see, it’s not enough for the ‘GHGs’ to just be in the atmosphere to make the surface warmer. They would first have to warm the atmosphere relative to the surface so that the temp difference (the gradient) between the two becomes smaller.
That is the only way. And this would not work. Because of convection. Because of the lapse rate. And the Climate Masters knew this. Which is why they invented the ‘new and improved’ GHE explanation with the Effective Radiation Level.
Also, read this very pertinent post by Claes Johnson: http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/02/physics-illusion-2-photons-as-light.html
An interesting quote: “Computational Blackbody Radiation describes radiative energy transfer as a resonance phenomenon between resonators connected by standing electromagnetic waves in a vacuum between the resonators. The acoustic analog is depicted above: Energy is transferred from one tuning fork to another by standing acoustic waves as pressure variations in still air.
In this model the finite speed of electromagnetic (or acoustic) waves only influences the energy transfer in a start up phase, while in a stationary state of standing waves the energy transfer can be viewed to be instantaneous without time delay, or to be without time aspect. The transfer of energy is one-way from hot (high frequency) to cold (low frequency).
In this view there is no need to introduce particles named photons carrying energy packets at finite speed back and forth between the resonators, as if the resonators were connected by a two-way highway with trucks transporting energy in both directions. There is no experimental evidence of the existence of such a two-way stream of light quanta.“
Kristian says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:38 pm
————————————
A note on back radiation, the “two shell” radiative model does work, and you can build and run the experiment for yourself if you have a high torr vacuum pump –
You will see that the target plate in chamber 1 does reach a higher temperature as the extra layer of thin foil radiativly slows its cooling rate.
However this experiment, despite it being foundation gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology, has absolutely no relevance to a moving gas atmosphere where non-radiative energy transports dominate (just as Sir George Simpson warned in 1938). In our atmosphere radiative gases cool. Radiative physics is fine, it’s just that climastrologists don’t understand it.
Konrad says, March 19, 2014 at 12:22 am:
“A note on back radiation, the “two shell” radiative model does work, and you can build and run the experiment for yourself if you have a high torr vacuum pump –
You will see that the target plate in chamber 1 does reach a higher temperature as the extra layer of thin foil radiativly slows its cooling rate.”
Konrad, did you even read my comment? The result of your experiment doesn’t give you the cause of the effect. That is up for interpretation and hypothesizing by the one doing the experiment, and for others. But no kind of interpretation will ever allow energy from a cooler object to make a warmer object warming the cooler one EVEN warmer. You do not reduce the cooling rate of an object by ADDING energy to it. You reduce the cooling rate of an object by actually reducing the flow of energy going OUT from that object.
There is no ‘heating by back radiation’. There is no way to even physically detect so-called ‘back radiation’ in a heat transfer situation. It is purely a hypothetical concept.
Kristian, quite shortly I expect to put up a new article (as co-mod) revealing actual data from surface instruments.
I’ve shown mischief in instrumentation. Now as a recent breakthrough I can take things further.
One of my objectives is clarification of the nonsense language being used widely. The “warm” you mention is actually sloppy usage of language by individuals who seem of a particular mental kind. Some get trouble too as a result (such as Spencer). I don’t know if they actually invert thinking, but it looks like that. Inversion is very common in society, such as the confusion over I / not I, cause and effect, sequence. What does what to what?
The warm they write of is causing the other to do something to itself, hardly direct language.
Maybe it is hard to say, throw a blanket over something you reduce something’s losses and as a consequence of it’s need to shed heat the something must heat up to try and lose as much as before.
Kristian says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:16 am
“But no kind of interpretation will ever allow energy from a cooler object to make a warmer object warming the cooler one EVEN warmer. You do not reduce the cooling rate of an object by ADDING energy to it. You reduce the cooling rate of an object by actually reducing the flow of energy going OUT from that object”
—————————————————-
I am in agreement with this.
The foil in chamber 1 is simply reducing the cooling rate of the target plate.
This is what climastrolgists claim radiative gases do in our atmosphere. However the “two shell” radiation game collapses as soon as there is a non-radiative energy transport between the two shells.
Is there non-radiative transport between the planet (shell 1) and the atmosphere (shell 2)? Yes, and this is precisely where most of the energy being radiated from the atmosphere is coming from, surface conduction and evaporation, both non-radiative transports. Intercepted radiation accounts for less than half of all energy being acquired by the atmosphere.
You could replace the foil in chamber 1 with a very fine matt black copper mesh. Add some aluminium glitter to the inner face of each target plate so they are not perfect radiators. Coat each absorber plate in non-conductive IR transparent silicone. Get rid of the vacuum pump and fill each chamber with dry nitrogen. Then run the experiment upside down (so convective transport goes in the right direction). Which target plate runs hotter now? It’s going to be chamber 2, the one with the “non-radiative atmosphere” 😉
Sometimes I think it may be worth to be looking for all the things the Church of Radiative Climatology got right rather than wrong. There would be a lot less to look for…
Konrad 9:06pm, 9:43pm: “The net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm”
Proven wrong for the earth/atm. energy balance. The internet never forgets 3/18 3:04am. True if & only if your experiments prove this list:
1) the 1st law is wrong,
2) Many surface L&O emissivity 1.0 rounded measurements by many different authors are all wrong
3) Volcanoes don’t exist to kick or supply continuous energy, or the sun finds out about the 1 volcano kick and reacts to increase its output to maintain 353.15K feeling slighted
4) Hydrostatic windy conditions can fuel a fire
5) Underpants gnomes exist but no weasels exist
6) It rains in space.
7) “transparent atm. and earth” two body contains no ocean surfaces, are not counted in the 255K L&O earth surface emissivity 1.0 rounded thingie. Where ARE these 80C ocean surfaces then Konrad if not on the surface of the rock?
“…DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”
The water is free to evaporatively cool to the room, not to deep space, no energy is lost to the earth/atm. system from evaporation b/c it doesn’t rain in space. This experiment does not disprove the 1st law or L&O emissivity is 1.0, rounded. Does not disprove today’s global atm. emissivity ~0.8.
“SB equations will not give the correct answer.”
They will. Just very complicated application of 3 card Monte here. Planck fundamentals are hidden up your sleeve – are tasty, give them a try. This experiment does not disprove the 1st law, does not disprove L&O emissivity is 1.0 rounded. Does not disprove today’s global atm. emissivty ~0.8.
“…run the experiment illuminating blocks A & B with 500 watts of SW radiation until they reach their respective equilibrium temperatures. – Now run the experiment again using 500 watts of LWIR radiation.”
Just very complicated application of 3 card Monte here. Planck fundamentals are hidden up your sleeve – are tasty, give them a try. This experiment does not disprove the 1st law, does not disprove L&O emissivity is 1.0 rounded. Does not disprove today’s global atm. emissivity ~0.8.
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
One word answer – Planck.
Multi-word answer: Very powerful that Stephen epiphany. If you want more of an answer than 1 word, absent LW DWIR, more surface area of Earth oceans would freeze seasonally, ocean surface would not freeze near the equator. I’ll look around to see if there is an estimate if you like.
Konrad – the hockey team I follow scored 2 goals the other night. Did they win or lose? Simple question. I’m interested to know in a simple 1 word answer. Well, what is it? Win or lose?
“what is the primary cooling mechanism for our atmosphere?”
Radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer out of surface control volume, and radiative energy transfer out of the TOA control volume.
12:22am: Sir George Simpson’s wind moves energy around IN the atm., no wind crosses the control volume to deep space therefore no effect on TOA system energy balance. Wind cannot fuel a fire IN the control volume.
Kristian says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:16 am
Kristian, that exchange just lead to a “light bulb moment”
“Coat each absorber plate in non-conductive IR transparent silicone.”
I have always been trying to achieve vacuum isolation for the absorber plate in experiment design, but it is not necessary! All that is required is conductive isolation for the gas “atmosphere being tested.
The problem with vacuum isolation is that no LWIR transparent materials are strong enough to withstand the pressure differential. But an IR transparent material that is very poor at thermal conduction will be good enough.
The “upside down” gas filled variant of the two shell experiment is possible. The difference between radiative and non-radiative gas atmosphere can be empirically demonstrated.
Stephen 6:21pm: ”The surface must rise above S-B prediction before convection can begin if an atmosphere is added to a solid surfaced rock in space.”.
Surface convection process only needs a fluid being increased in temperature from below in gravity field, evident in any atm. due the lapse rate. You are so forgetful. For convection to occur, the surface doesn’t have to rise above S-B – whatever that means. Surface T operates in accord with S-B if the particles are way larger than the light wavelength as on earth – not in the moon regolith.
Yes, inversions happen, means fluid increased in temperature from above and convection reduces.
Radiative considerations are only relevant to the extent to which the temperature rises above S-B and since radiative molecules increase opacity they reduce the size of the increase above S-B so in fact they have a cooling effect. That is fatal to AGW theory.
Descent into gibberish.
3:24am: The surface temperature is a result of mass and transparency.Nothing to do with radiative fluxes.
Stephen is so forgetful, remember the internet never forgets like Konrad:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
and
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
So substitute radiation whenever Stephen says mass, corrected for demonstrated forgetfulness:
The surface temperature is a result of radiation and transparency. Pay attention to radiative fluxes since temperature is affected.
because:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
Guys, this just goes to show how tired I was in my last posts. I though we were taken ‘off thread’ to discuss in private. I didn’t realise at the time that the thread was so long that another page was made available to us. 😦
Best regards, ray.
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:07 am
———————————–
Well Trick, you finally got something right! In answer to this –
“what is the primary cooling mechanism for our atmosphere?”
You answered –
“Radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer out of surface control volume, and radiative energy transfer out of the TOA control volume.”
So you agree that radiative cooling to space is the atmospheres primary cooling mechanism. Hurrah!
Which neatly illustrates why you refuse to admit that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling. Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling and the atmospheres primary cooling mechanism is radiative gases, then that would mean of course that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Lets observe how you thrash and flex..
I say empirical experiment proves –
“…DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”
And you try –
“The water is free to evaporatively cool to the room, not to deep space, no energy is lost to the earth/atm. system from evaporation b/c it doesn’t rain in space.”
Nowhere do I claim it rains in space. The evaporative cooling of our oceans that stops the sun driving the oceans to ~80C just moves energy into the atmosphere. What was the atmospheres primary cooling mechanism again Trick?
I suggested –
“…run the experiment illuminating blocks A & B with 500 watts of SW radiation until they reach their respective equilibrium temperatures. – Now run the experiment again using 500 watts of LWIR radiation.”
You responded with –
“Just very complicated application of 3 card Monte here. Planck fundamentals are hidden up your sleeve ..”
If you actually understood the physics of how the sun heats our oceans you should have responded with –
for SW test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = X, B = Y where X > Y
for LWIR test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = B = Y
You didn’t give this answer because you couldn’t work it out. And no, SB equations will not give the correct answer.
Trick, empirical experiment shows that DWLWIR cannot heat or slow the cooling of our oceans. Empirical experiment shows that without conductive and evaporative cooling the sun would heat the oceans to ~80C (not -18C). So I ask yet again –
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
3:17 am “The evaporative cooling of our oceans that stops the sun driving the oceans to ~80C just moves energy into the atmosphere. What was the atmospheres primary cooling mechanism again Trick?”
Konrad – your hypothetical 80C is in the surface control volume correct? Thermometer level.
In surface control volume, atmosphere’s primary cooling mechanism depends on the atm. emissivity.
If 0.8 actual atm., radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer, control volume Tmean=288K.
If 0.0 theoretical atm. emissivity, conductive, convective energy transfer, control volume Tmean=255K.
“…then that would mean of course that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”
No. You confuse control volumes. This was Simpson’s mistake also.
If semi-opaque atm. at ~0.8 emissivity, BOTH the surface & atm. cooling at TOA is radiative energy transfer. If theoretical transparent atm. at ~0.0, only the surface cooling at TOA is radiative energy transfer.
Now I think of it, a text book consistent restatement would be:
“…then that would mean of course that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is added cooling from atm. and reduced cooling from surface at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”
Reduced cooling from surface! This is why the surface temperature control volume increases from 255K to 288K because of Stephen’s epiphany aka 1st law:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
Kristian says: March 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm
“Er, yes. And that is because of work being done BY the ‘mass’ during expansion and of work being done ON the ‘mass’ during compression. Same amount of energy going OUT/IN.”
Er, NO. There is “NO ENERGY EXCHANGE” during ‘adiabatic’ transformations!!!
“Yup. Adiabatic cooling/heating involves ‘work’ and no ‘heat’.”
NO! It’s just a ‘reconfiguration’ of what’s already there and is a ‘property’ of the atmospheric mass.
“I must ask, suricat: Where did you get the idea that I confuse the convective with the adiabatic process?”
Read the above.
“suricat, I have to ask you the same question I asked Stephen: Why do you think the tropopause is so high in the tropics and so much lower at high latitudes? Because of this difference, the tropical tropopause is both much colder AND sees much lower air pressures than at temperate latitudes. Why do you think that is? And why is the tropopause higher in the summer hemisphere than in the winter hemisphere, effectively nonexistent in the polar regions in winter?
Clue: It all involves surface heating. And you know what process is driven by surface heating? Convection.”
Well at least you’ve identified ‘part’ of the process Kristian.
Add ‘radial’ and ‘planar’ centrifuge from Earth’s ‘rotational influence’ to your list and you’ll improve your understanding. Earth’s ‘centrifuge’ reduces the ‘weight’ of a mass by ~8cm/sec^2 at the equator. This is enough to establish the ‘Brewer Dobson’ circulation in the lower Strat..
Earth rotation and insolation both ‘share’ a mediator affect for the elevated Tropo at equatorial latitudes. Polar latitudes are quite different in that, NH has its Pole at ‘sea level’, whereas SH has it’s Pole at ‘altitude’ (above the Antarctic land mass).
“Here’s an interesting post on just this topic by Chiefio:”
Yes, I read this when he first posted it. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
3:17am: Konrad implies it rains in space because he says: DWLWIR cannot ….slow the cooling rate of liquid water…” meaning the ocean’s LH went somewhere else – dumped to space.
”Nowhere do I claim it rains in space.”
Good; then start claiming DWLWIR CAN slow the cooling rate of surface control volume because it contains the LH LWIR down to surface & not dumped to space.
”You didn’t give this answer because you couldn’t work it out.”
For sure. THIS is a work out?? That proves Planck wrong? Proves 1st law wrong? Proves L&O emissivity wrong? Proves atm. emissivity wrong? Did underpants gnomes come in and add/steal some energy? Show they didn’t – exactly. Can’t weasel out with this:
”for SW test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = X, B = Y where X .GT. Y
for LWIR test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = B = Y”
Not no, but hell no. You can’t handle the physics, son. Measure with calibrated instruments (ISO!), apply Planck; apply a control volume & account for ALL energy flux, apply the various emissivities, apply the 1st law, et. al., show the exact numbers.
When scientific method is used & you are done: you will collapse in sweat and sigh saying, “Well Planck with his 3 fundamental constants of nature was right after all, no gnomes.” Then (slug down a scotch) head to the computer and inform me.
”SB equations will not give the correct answer” You haven’t even tried, S-B and conductive, convective energy transfer will work if the particle size of interest is much, much larger than the wavelength of interest.
”Trick, empirical experiment shows that DWLWIR cannot .. slow the cooling of our oceans…”
Then it rains in space.
“Is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere on the oceans cooling or warming?”
Very powerful that Stephen epiphany. Absent LW DWIR, more surface area of Earth oceans would freeze seasonally, ocean surface would not freeze near the equator. I’ll look around to see if there is an estimate if you like.
Konrad – I’ve already answered this three times or more, you have not answered: the hockey team I follow scored 2 goals the other night. Did they win or lose? Simple question. I’m interested to know in a simple 1 word answer. Well, what is it? Win or lose?
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:10 am
———————————
“your hypothetical 80C…” ?
Hypothetical my a$$! –
That’s what happens when water heated by the sun cannot conductively or evaporatively cool. On our planet our radiativly cooled atmosphere stops this happening. A non-radiative atmosphere cannot stop these temperatures occurring because it has no way of cooling itself.
Our oceans are not being heated at the surface by a constant ¼ power sun. They are being heated at depth by intermittent diurnal pulses of solar SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2. DWLWIR provably plays absolutely no role in heating or slowing the cooling rate of the ocean surface. The slow speed of non-radiative transport within the oceans allows the energy to accumulate.
Even with the full power of evaporative and conductive cooling the tropical oceans still get driven to ~30C. Without atmospheric cooling they would reach truly incredible temperatures.
There is no way out Trick. The oceans need the atmosphere to cool and the atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool. Radiative gases therefore cool our planet at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:57 am
”for SW test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = X, B = Y where X .GT. Y
for LWIR test equilibrium temps for the blocks A = B = Y”
Not no, but hell no. You can’t handle the physics, son. Measure with calibrated instruments (ISO!), apply Planck; apply a control volume & account for ALL energy flux, apply the various emissivities, apply the 1st law, et. al., show the exact numbers.
——————————————————————————-
“Not no, but hell no.”
Priceless! You can’t work it out can you Trick?
“Show all exact numbers”?
You don’t need a single number to get the required answer to that problem, let alone a single (ISO!) calibrated instrument. The full build instructions for the two acrylic test blocks was given. That the SW illumination and the LWIR illumination were of equal power was given. That was all someone who understood physics needed to get the right answer. That and “>”, “<” and “=” signs…
This right here –
“ apply the various emissivities”
– is the dead give-away as to why you can't work it out.
Who can't handle the physics Trick?
Stephen 6:21pm: ”The surface must rise above S-B prediction before convection can begin if an atmosphere is added to a solid surfaced rock in space.”.
Trick’s reply:
“Surface convection process only needs a fluid being increased in temperature from below in gravity field, evident in any atm. due the lapse rate”
Trick forgets that energy transfer by conduction is slower than that via radiation so placing a fluid above a surface will first raise the temperature of that surface due to the reduced speed of energy loss and only then, after the temperature has risen, will convection begin.
The S-B equation only predicts the MINIMUM average temperature for a rock at a given distance from a radiation source.
That minimum is calculated on the basis of IMMEDIATE radiative energy loss. If anything slows down the rate at which radiation can be released then the temperature goes higher.
As I said:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
Trick acknowledges the power of that statement but fails to work out the consequences.
Since conduction slows down the transmission of energy before convection follows it must be the case that more conduction leads to a higher surface temperature.
The interesting point then is that conduction is greatest when most solar radiation reaches the surface so a transparent atmosphere must result in a warmer surface than an opaque atmosphere.
We can see that in our desert regions.
GHGs result in a more opaque atmosphere and so must work against the mass induced greenhouse effect for a cooling effect.
There really is no way out of that for AGW theory.
Konrad said:
“A non-radiative atmosphere cannot stop these temperatures occurring because it has no way of cooling itself”
A non radiative atmosphere cools from the surface by radiation direct to space.
There will still be a convective circulation working to return energy in the air back to the surface. Cold radiating surfaces can pull energy from air very fast and if there is wind then inversions will not form extensively enough to cause any problem.
Konrad: There is no way out Trick. The oceans need the atmosphere to cool and the atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool. Radiative gases therefore cool our planet at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
The oceans also need the surface pressure provided by the mass of the atmosphere to get as warm as they do (because it limits the rate of evaporation), as well as the cooling effect of the atmospheric convection and radiation to shed energy into the troposphere and then out to space.
Stephen: …a transparent atmosphere must result in a warmer surface than an opaque atmosphere. We can see that in our desert regions.
The temperature of desert surfaces has a lot to do with their dryness. No evaporation to cool it. If there was evaporating moisture, the surface would be a lot cooler, even if a high level wind was then removing the moisture so that no clouds formed to shade the surface.
TB said:
“No evaporation to cool it. If there was evaporating moisture, the surface would be a lot cooler,”
Desert atmospheres are more transparent because they are dry and it is apparently the degree of the transparency that matters because transparency allows more surface heating and more conduction.
Of course, where there is water available at the surface to evaporate, different rules apply because of the phase changes but the basic rule is still that there is more surface heating, more conduction and a higher attainable surface temperature (in excess of S-B) when the atmosphere is transparent.
Obvious when you think about it but the opposite of the AGW proposition.
They think that a more opaque atmosphere warms the surface further above S-B by allowing more DWIR.
Note:
i) A perfectly transparent atmosphere has maximum solar heating and maximum conduction at the surface. Temperature 288K at Earth’s atmospheric pressure.
ii) A partially transparent atmosphere reduces solar heating at the surface, also reducing conduction from the surface and the radiating height rises off the surface. Temperature between 255K and 288K
iii) A fully opaque atmosphere prevents solar heating at the surface altogether so there can be no conduction and the radiating height moves to ToA. 255K That would be just as if the atmosphere were a solid and the planet a bare rock.
So, only i) can maximise conduction at the surface to maximise the increase above S-B which for Earth gets us to 288K
And the more mass above the surface in i) the more atmospheric weight is restraining convection and the higher the temperature must rise to force convection up against the weight of the atmosphere.
Is it not obvious ?
suricat says, March 19, 2014 at 4:19 am:
“Er, NO. There is “NO ENERGY EXCHANGE” during ‘adiabatic’ transformations!!!”
Sorry, suricat, you seem to be as confused as Stephen on the matter of adiabatic cooling and heating. Read any entry on the subject and you will see that HEAT cannot be transferred across the boundaries of the gas volume, not ‘energy’. And WORK is then what does the heating and the cooling of the volume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
suricat says, March 19, 2014 at 4:19 am:
“Well at least you’ve identified ‘part’ of the process Kristian.
Add ‘radial’ and ‘planar’ centrifuge from Earth’s ‘rotational influence’ to your list and you’ll improve your understanding.”
Gee. Thanks, Professor!
Konrad says, March 19, 2014 at 2:03 am:
“The foil in chamber 1 is simply reducing the cooling rate of the target plate.
This is what climastrolgists claim radiative gases do in our atmosphere. However the “two shell” radiation game collapses as soon as there is a non-radiative energy transport between the two shells.”
This is their fixed glass lid ‘analogy’, yes. Works within a box. Not in the free atmosphere.
But can we please lay the whole ‘atmosphere warming the surface by back radiation’ thing to rest? The whole theoretical concept of ‘back radiation’ is completely redundant when it comes to describing radiative heat transfer between two objects at different temperatures. The only ‘real’ flow of energy is the HEAT and in nature it only goes from hot to cold, ever. Even radiation has to obey this. Not just conduction.
No, it’s all about differences (gradients) in temperature (potential). That is what the radiative heat transfer equation is actually saying. So why just blindly indulge the GHE and AGW crowd by acknowledging ‘back radiation’ as a second heat source out of nothing, from a cooler place, for the surface (as Bart seems to do), when this so clearly violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics in one go?
tchannon says, March 19, 2014 at 1:43 am:
“Kristian, quite shortly I expect to put up a new article (as co-mod) revealing actual data from surface instruments.
I’ve shown mischief in instrumentation. Now as a recent breakthrough I can take things further.”
Looking forward to it 🙂
“The warm they write of is causing the other to do something to itself, hardly direct language.
Maybe it is hard to say, throw a blanket over something you reduce something’s losses and as a consequence of it’s need to shed heat the something must heat up to try and lose as much as before.”
I agree, tchannon. I just can’t stand the ‘back radiation’ nonsense. Especially when ‘skeptics’ seem to take its magical ‘warming of warmer’-abilities for granted as an established physical truth. It’s NOT! This is how well their propaganda machine has been working. People think it’s ‘basic physics’ when it most definitely is NOT. It’s invented ‘Climate Physics’ and only that. Based on certain ‘interpretations’ and corner-cutting extrapolations of real physical concepts.
If we just dropped the ‘back radiation’ thing completely and concentrated on the HEAT, the actual flow of energy between two objects at different temperatures, then everything would be so much clearer. Well, not to the warmists of course, but to us.
You don’t reduce an object’s cooling by adding more energy to it. Then you’re HEATING it. No, you reduce an object’s cooling by somehow restricting the flow of energy going out from that object.
Why is this so hard to grasp? It should be intuitive.
Kristian 11:29am: “So why just blindly indulge the GHE and AGW crowd by acknowledging ‘back radiation’ as a second heat source out of nothing, from a cooler place, for the surface…”
Because the problem is you blindly indulge in straw men that you then stab. Here is the correct way to word this, drop the blindly, see the light & believe in Planck’s Law, the one with 3 fundamental constants of nature:
“Indulge the GHE and AGW crowd by acknowledging ‘back radiation’ as an energy flux from atm. mass, from a cooler place, for the surface control volume.”
Forward atm. & some surface radiation goes out TOA. No stabbing that needed because:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
Konrad 4:58am: “A non-radiative atmosphere cannot stop these temperatures occurring because it has no way of cooling itself.”
No way? 2 ways. Konrad continues confuse control volumes.
The atm. with 0.0 emissivity cools itself 2 ways by conductive energy transfer, convective energy transfer at its highest energy contact with the surface, the lapse causes T to decline from surface to TOA. The only thing that changes really is the time constant to equilibrium Tmean 255K in surface control volume – for all this to happen.
“The oceans need the atmosphere to cool…”
In part, deep space works too, you continue confuse control volumes Konrad, even with 0.0 atm. emissivity absent DW LWIR, oceans would still have conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer to cool off to 255K. The 1st law shows oceans would do just fine. The 1st law can be used to solve all your experiments dead nuts.
“- is the dead give-away as to why you can’t work it out.”
No kidding, you keep my needed Planck card up your sleeve. The mark never wins at 3 card Monte either Konrad, you play a good Monte game, have even won over some shills at times to help fleece the lambs.
******
Stephen 7:50am: ”Trick forgets that energy transfer by conduction is slower than that via radiation…
No, see my comment to Konrad, the time constant to equilibrium majorly changes at 0.0 atm. emissivity. Stephen acknowledges the power of that statement but fails to work out the consequences.
Trick says, March 19, 2014 at 11:58 am:
“Because the problem is you blindly indulge in straw men that you then stab. Here is the correct way to word this, drop the blindly, see the light & believe in Planck’s Law, the one with 3 fundamental constants of nature:
“Indulge the GHE and AGW crowd by acknowledging ‘back radiation’ as an energy flux from atm. mass, from a cooler place, for the surface control volume.”
Forward atm. & some surface radiation goes out TOA. No stabbing that needed because:”
There’s no straw man here, Trick. I’m simply calling your bluff. What you SAY and what you DO are two very different things.
You SAY that it’s just an ‘energy flux’ but at the same time you expect this energy flux to result in a net increase in internal energy and hence a raised temperature of the warmer object that originally sent the energy out in the first place. In effect, you’re letting the surface warm itself directly by absorbing it’s own lost (but recycled) energy.
Trick, an ‘energy flux’ from one thermodynamic system to another resulting in an increase in internal energy and a higher temperature for the receiving system is specifically defined in physics as HEAT (or work). In nature such an ‘energy flux’ with such a direct result does not pass from cold to hot. ONLY the opposite way. There is no in between. The warmer surface does not absorb radiation for energy gain from the cooler atmosphere, Trick. That is an absurd proposition.
Kristian 12:47 – “You SAY that it’s just an ‘energy flux’ but at the same time you expect this energy flux to result in a net increase in internal energy and hence a raised temperature…”
No I said no such thing, another strawman well stabbed, you keep slowing of the cooling up your sleeve, read Stephen carefully, run it with “slowing down” and then do it for “speeding up” enable your own epiphany:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
tallbloke says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:18 am
“The oceans also need the surface pressure provided by the mass of the atmosphere to get as warm as they do (because it limits the rate of evaporation), as well as the cooling effect of the atmospheric convection and radiation to shed energy into the troposphere and then out to space.”
——————————————
Rog, the effect of pressure on water was covered on this thread by a great experiment posted by Chaeremon here –
With my response here –
I am aware of the effect of pressure over the oceans. Pressure itself doesn’t heat the oceans but it allows the sun to heat them, with higher pressure meaning the sun can heat the water to a higher temperature because evaporation then requires higher temperatures. But we are trying to determine only one thing, what is the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere?
That is the point of this experiment design –
It eliminates all atmospheric processes and features above a water sample excepting pressure. No conductive cooling, no evaporative cooling and no DWLWIR. The sample can heat at depth by SW and and only cool from the surface by LWIR.
In this way it is possible to empirically determine the net effect of the atmosphere on a water sample for a given pressure.
Why demonstrate the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling? Because the atmosphere (as Trick has finally admitted) has only one effective cooling mechanism, that being radiative gases.
Claiming a non-radiative atmosphere at the same pressure as our current atmosphere can cool our oceans doesn’t work, because such an atmosphere would have no effective way of cooling itself. (Conduction back to radiately cooled patches of desert on the remaining 29% of the planets surface, only at night, with gravity fighting hard to prevent warm air getting there is not what I would describe as an “effective” cooling mechanism)
The Church of Radiative Climatology have decreed that an atmosphere without a radiative cooling ability would run hotter than an atmosphere with radiative cooling ability. Their gospel is pseudo science.
tallbloke says: March 19, 2014 at 9:29 am
The temperature of desert surfaces has a lot to do with their dryness.
Actually the other way around. The air over the deserts around 30 N and S is part of the Hadley cell circulation. It is DESCENDING towards the desert surfaces, and warming roughly according the DALR during that descent and thus relatively dry. Since the rising part of the circulation is in the tropics, moist air convection up, cooling according the WALR, losing moisture and then moving N and S we have something similar to the classical Fohn effect. This is really basic meteorology.
Not much clouds form in the descending, relatively dry air, so the sun can warm the surface considerably. Since the surface doesn’t contain much moisture it can’t hold on to all this heat very well, and cools fast during the night.
The air has a low RELATIVE humidity, but contains about as much moisture as during a cold, foggy day in London. If the temperature drops in the desert, you can have fog there as well.
Trick says, March 19, 2014 at 12:59 pm:
“Kristian 12:47 – “You SAY that it’s just an ‘energy flux’ but at the same time you expect this energy flux to result in a net increase in internal energy and hence a raised temperature…”
No I said no such thing, another strawman well stabbed,”
Yes, Trick, you stated the following, and I’m quoting you now: “Indulge the GHE and AGW crowd by acknowledging ‘back radiation’ as an energy flux from atm. mass, from a cooler place, for the surface control volume.” (My bold.)
So you SAY it’s just an ‘energy flux’, but in reality what you DO is treating this ‘energy flux’ as a ‘HEAT flux. Refer back to my quote above.
Kristian says: March 18, 2014 at 6:59 pm
“In other words, there is nothing in what you say that goes against the GENERAL PRINCIPLE we’re talking about here.”
Perhaps I’m confused about what the General Principle is that’s being talked about.
The GHE states that the sun can’t warm the air at ~1,5m to our present temperatures, and backradiation from GH gasses is needed to explain the current surface temperatures (ST).
Firstly there is discussion about the actual warming capability of the sun, since the moon is considerably colder than the used calculation predicts.
What we need is an alternative and better explanation for our observed ST.
I see Konrad, who says that the sun is perfectly capable of explaining our observed ST.
I see Stephan who says the atmospheric pressure will increase the ST above what the sun is capable of doing.
My position is simple: we need to explain how the ST on earth can be ~90K higher than on the moon. The atmosphere has a thermal mass equal to that of ~3 meter water and is colder than the surface. Expecting this atmosphere to warm the surface AND the deep oceans is not realistic.
My explanation is simple: the world is mostly covered with oceans ( > 70%), and their temperature was > 300-350K during their creation. They have been cooling down since, interrupted by gigantic magma eruptions warming them up again.
This mechanism can explain a lot of processes, ao the Faint young sun paradox, the onset and quick retreat of ice ages, the magnified effect of the Milankovitch cycles etc. etc.
Discussion about all this? Hardly any. If I’m wrong, then tell me why and were. Otherwise let’s get serious and blow this GHE nonsense and the role of CO2 therein to pieces.
Ben: thanks. Very clear.
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 12:20 pm
“The atm. with 0.0 emissivity cools itself 2 ways by conductive energy transfer, convective energy transfer at its highest energy contact with the surface, the lapse causes T to decline from surface to TOA”
————————————————
No that won’t work either. One of your two ways isn’t even a cooling mechanism!!!
“lapse causes T to decline from surface to TOA”
That’s an adiabatic process! Adiabatic cooling on ascent is matched by adiabatic heating on decent, it can’t remove energy from a non-radiative atmosphere.
And –
“conductive energy transfer”
I seriously hope you weren’t trying the “conductive transfer back to the surface where it is then radiated to space” BS. 71% of the planets surface is ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling then that only leaves you small patches of desert and a couple of ice caps on the remaining 29% of the planet to conduct back to. And then only at night for the deserts! Worse, the surface is rubbish at conductively cooling the atmosphere as demonstrated by empirical experiment –
There are no available escape routes Trick.
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
Ben Wouters says, March 19, 2014 at 1:34 pm:
“My position is simple: we need to explain how the ST on earth can be ~90K higher than on the moon. The atmosphere has a thermal mass equal to that of ~3 meter water and is colder than the surface. Expecting this atmosphere to warm the surface AND the deep oceans is not realistic.”
Yes, it’s evident you’re confused about what principles we’re talking about here. The atmosphere does absolutely NOTHING to warm the surface directly. How could it? The Sun warms the surface. But the surface needs also to get rid of the absorbed energy from the Sun. And it does so primarily by conducting > convecting and evaporating it away into the atmosphere. Now, there’s a certain inertia inherent to this kind of ‘molecular’ shedding of energy from a surface, a slowness from mass that the propagation of EM waves is not encumbered by.
So what the atmosphere does is restricting the rate at which the surface can shed its absorbed energy ‘convectively’ at a specific temperature.
Kristian says: March 19, 2014 at 2:28 pm
“The atmosphere does absolutely NOTHING to warm the surface directly.”
Great , so we agree that pulling an earth like atmosphere around the moon will not do much to the surface temperature. I think we would see a slight rise in temperature because the atmosphere slows the heat loss to space slightly once it has warmed up. Perhaps from 197K to 205-210K.
So next question is: how can we have liquid oceans on earth, since the sun plus atmosphere are totally incapable of getting the average surface temperature anywhere near 275K ?
tallbloke says: March 19, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“Very clear.”
To make absolutely sure: during the upward part of both the Hadley cell circulation and the Fohneffect moisture has to be lost (rain), otherwise NO extra temperature rise in the downward part.
Konrad 1:39pm: Like a good confidence game operator that he is, Konrad distracts from my bitcoin slapped on the table 3/18 3:04am where I must have called the money card – this in order for Konrad to delay paying up. I think his is an entertaining game of Monte long as I know who is the mark.
”One of your two ways isn’t even a cooling mechanism!!!”
Konrad slides either the conductive energy transfer card or the convective energy transfer card up his sleeve with this antic. But this time the marks notice.
”…(approx. lapse rate i.e. g/Cp) can’t remove energy from a non-radiative atmosphere.”
Didn’t write that lapse rate could, g/Cp process dumps no energy to space which was Simpson’s mistake, leaves it all in the atm. Can’t remove energy this way from radiative atm. either.
”….then that only leaves you small patches of desert ….to conduct back to.”
Ok was the conductive energy transfer card removed from the table. Konrad hides water’s ability to conduct up his sleeve. I notice sweating Konrad’s cold beer is not wrapped in a sleeve as mine is since not being able to handle the physics, Konrad’s belief is the water in it will fail to conduct. Believes underpants gnomes chill HIS beer by subtracting energy as in his experiments. In reality, there are no gnomes, Konrad drinks warm beer for the marks who think it is kept nice and cold and thus my sleeve must be worthless.
If Konrad could show the true atm. physics money card on the table, he’d realize deserts are regions of descending air on the lee side of mountain ranges, e.g. Atacama, Owens Valley.
”There are no available escape routes Trick.”
Delivered by a true master of the Monte confidence game.
Kristian said:
“So what the atmosphere does is restricting the rate at which the surface can shed its absorbed (by conduction) energy ‘convectively’ at a specific temperature.”
Exactly, and at 1 bar pressure the temperature increase is 33K if one accepts 255K as the ‘correct’ temperature but there is some debate about that.
Now, AGW proponents think that energy stored at the surface to maintain the height of the atmosphere must, at the very same time be available for radiation to space unless it is replaced by DWIR. They say that the sky radiates to the ground to keep it warm.
I don’t accept that DWIR comes down from the sky as a radiative flux from on high but one can see that if the surface temperature is elevated as a result of warmed air and warmed ground together at the surface then one could propose balanced UWIR from the surface to the lowest air molecules and DWIR from the lowest air molecules to the ground.
That would pin the start point of the lapse rate to the surface too.
The thing is that there cannot be unbalanced DWIR or UWIR at any point along the lapse rate slope.
By definition, the line of the lapse rate gradient is the location where DWIR and UWIR and conduction and convection are all in balance.
All that happens with radiative molecules is that their position along the lapse rate slope changes as necessary to ensure that their DWIR emitted balances their UWIR received from the ground, which gives a zero thermal effect at the surface.
At all times convection is working to try and place ALL atmospheric molecules along the lapse rate slope in positions appropriate to their energy (KE+PE) content.
At any one time there are on average as many molecules on one side of the slope as on the other and if that goes awry then convection works to correct it.
That hypothesis corrects the faulty component in radiative theory by disposing of the need for any DWIR / UWIR imbalance anywhere in the vertical column.
DWIR and UWIR are always on average in balance on average at every point in the vertical column as a direct result of the lapse rate and the convection working around it.
Actually it is the radiative loss that is restricted rather than the convective loss because conduction and convection are slower than radiation but I think that is what Kristian meant.
Ben 1:34pm ”What we need is an alternative and better explanation for (Earth) observed (surface control volume Tmean).”
I would submit what we need is a better explanation for moon observed equator Tmean and then total surface Tmean calculated. Specifically, physics can improve in the understanding of the moon surface fine “powder” emissivity. I would like to think academic interest remains to keep working on it.
”(Oceans) have been cooling down since (creation)…
After 4+bln years? I seriously doubt the time constant is that long even considering the diffusion process is slow. But I suppose could be that long b/c that IS true for the gas giants. I would have to say sure seems like surface LTE has been achieved but that is only derived from a human time scale. At any rate, think the assumptions of LTE achieved on surface control volume are close enough for gov. work.
I think you bring up a good point though in that the deep oceans T variations likely hardly notice a glacial to interglacial happening top side so I’d like to see a paleo discussion of the deep oceans Tmean instead of surface air Tmean plotted back eons against CO2. If you know one, please share.
Stephen 4:09pm:
^Applause^
Serviceable, not quite level standing ovation as this gem caused:
“A slowing down in the rate of transmission of energy flowing through a system whilst energy continues to arrive at the same rate as before must increase total system energy content and raise temperature.”
tallbloke says:
“The figure is wildly incorrect. The Moon’s average surface temperature at the equator has been empirically measured to be around 214k. By doing a proper integration N&Z showed the overall average to be around 198K.”
N&Z’s analysis is wrong (which is why it can’t get published anywhere). Standard radiative physics is perfectly adequate to predict the average lunar temperature and the entire temperature curve along the equator, as I show here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
[Reply] You miss the point David. The ‘standard physics’ (for climate ‘science’) used by, for example, Hansen 2013 still gets the average surface temperature for the body as a whole wildly wrong. Creating your own hybrid of N&Z’s method and then claiming it to be ‘standard physics’ when in fact you’ve stolen their idea of calculating the sunward hemisphere separately from the nightside is laughably hubristic.
The full reply to your comment will take place on this thread, https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/one-of-our-spacecraft-is-missing-diviner-lunar-radiometer-website-mia/ where people can more easily compare your equation with that used by Hansen. This productive thread will not be derailed by your dissembling.
Ben 3:45pm: “So next question is: how can we have liquid oceans on earth, since the sun plus atmosphere are totally incapable of getting the average surface temperature anywhere near 275K ?”
A: With today’s gross solar constant, net of albedo on the input side, gross UWIR net of DWIR on the output side and including thermals and LH counted as in Stephen’s et. al. 2012 from 10 years of CERES observations, earth surface control volume (1.5m agl) computes out by 1st law to ~288K in steady state equilibrium give or take a bit. See Bohren 2006 p. 33 on-line cite to reduce any confusion that I gave way above for the details (or I can re-post).
Surface L&O emissivity measured 1.0, rounded and global atm. emissivity measured ~0.8. The 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal, cars waste, power plant waste, forest fires et. al. being in the 288K round off.
Kristian 1:16pm: “So you SAY it’s just an ‘energy flux’, but in reality what you DO is treating this ‘energy flux’ as a ‘HEAT flux. Refer back to my quote above.”
Bzzzt.
I don’t use or treat the word “heat”, ever. Well, it does leak out sometimes when I may have been drinking. That “heat” word just confuses posters like Kristian demonstrates in this thread. You may have noticed my campaign against the “heat” word as a noun which has no use at all in modern science. Except if you want to entertain playing a good game of Monte where “heat” can be made very useful to hide the money card from the mark. You want debate this, you will really get me going.
Ocean Heat Content? Bzzzt. Zero colorless massless fluid called “heat” in the oceans, plenty of energy. Habit from caloric days, this thing dies slow.
Pouring “heat” from a hot metal bar to a cold one? Bzzzt. Went out with caloric theory, do seem to recall the last paper arguing from caloric theory view was early 1970s though.
Heat transfer? Bzzzt. Energy transfers – by conductive, convective, radiative physics. Both ways because:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
So Kristian? Can you restate what I wrote not using the “heat” word I’m campaigning stamp out to reduce confusion or best in my own words?
OK, I give on heat capacity Cp, Cv. Not ever going to win that one. Can use “heat” as an adjective, I won’t complain. Just simmer.
Stephen Wilde says, March 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm:
“Kristian said:
“So what the atmosphere does is restricting the rate at which the surface can shed its absorbed (by conduction) energy ‘convectively’ at a specific temperature.””
I must say, Stephen, that was a bit ugly. You quoted me and inserted your own interpretation of what’s going on (in bold) to make it look as if I now all of a sudden agree with you. You know I don’t. The energy the surface needs to shed is ONLY solar, Stephen. There is no conduction back down. Please move on from that nonsense.
Trick says, March 19, 2014 at 6:45 pm:
“I don’t use or treat the word “heat”, ever.”
Hey, pal, can you read? I didn’t claim you SAY heat. I say you DO heat. You SAY one thing and then you DO another. That’s what you people do. You hide behind the ‘energy’ word while what you’re actually doing is transferring ‘heat’ from a cold to a hot system.
Yes, it’s you, Ball4. You still don’t see it, don’t you? YOU’RE the confused one. You’re confusing yourself because to you everything is just energy. But newsflash! All energy does not act the same way or has the same effect in any given situation. This you see if you keep the different kinds of energy apart by giving them different names. YOU’RE unable to, because you insist on using just the one. So in your world everything just becomes one big fuzzy fog where anything can occur in any direction at any time. Yuhuu!
Good luck with that.
Stephen Wilde says, March 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm:
“Actually it is the radiative loss that is restricted rather than the convective loss because conduction and convection are slower than radiation but I think that is what Kristian meant.”
From the surface it is primarily the convective losses that are restricted by the presence of the atmosphere.
Sorry, Kristian,
I thought that by putting it in brackets it would be obvious that it was my interpretation of what you meant. Readers could see the change for themselves easily enough.
Surely the absorbing done is of solar energy by the surface so my interpretation was correct, wasn’t it ?
And I agree with that.
I wasn’t meaning to refer to energy absorbed from the atmosphere and didn’t think you meant that either.
I’ve accepted that the adiabatically warmed descending air does not warm the surface directly but rather reduces surface radiative cooling instead.
I think we agree on more than you realise.
Kristian,
Perhaps we can agree on this version:
“So what the atmosphere does is restrict the rate at which the surface can shed it’s conductively absorbed solar energy because the convective process induced by conduction introduces a delay in radiation back out to space.”.
You can also add that the more atmospheric mass there is the higher the surface temperature needs to be to cause convection because a greater weight of atmosphere needs to be overcome.
In the end, though would you agree that because adiabatic convection brings down as much energy as it sends up then on completion of the first convective cycle both surface, and air in contact with the surface, will be warmer than would otherwise have been the case ?
You see, the warmed descending air needs do no more warming of the surface than did the rising air cause cooling of the surface. Restricting net radative loss is adequate without direct conductive warming. A cooling surface will draw energy from moving warm air very effectively and if the wind is strong enough may cool hardly at all.
In reality, at both ends of the convective cycle the surface and the air above it are at the same temperature on average.
Obviously, day and night and seasonal changes cause surface and air temperatures to diverge wildly from one another but averaged out globally they stay the same as each other and wind,with its associated weather, provides the mechanism whereby they are kept equal overall.
Kristian 7:27pm: ”I didn’t claim you SAY heat. I say you DO heat.”
I DO heat huh? But I don’t SAY heat? I can sort of see why this comes about. When radiative energy transfer is happening between two bodies can “see” each other, the body at higher temperature cannot increase in mean temperature due this process by 2nd Law but the higher temperature body entropy must always increase for real unforced processes. You ok with that?
Applying to real earth/atm./sun system – the lapse rate generally means the atm. is mostly lower temperature than the L&O surface. Radiation from cooler atm. to surface does increase entropy of the surface but it cannot increase the surface temperature generally, the system being in steady state equilibrium. There are continuous kicks to the system from various sources and it demonstrates fair amount of stability.
Did I DO heat correctly or not? If agree, let me fill you in on interesting statistical conundrum many cannot see in this process, comes about thru statistics of KE.
In the meantime, give you this thought experiment: Take the real earth system in steady state as exists today, Tmean ~288K. My Martian buddies feeling chilly on home planet, invent a device that is able chill earth surface to 255K, in order to steal some energy, creating an imbalance. I propose under these circumstances the atm. does increase the energy of the surface in part along with the sun back to 288K. You ok with this?
Kristian says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:38 pm
“Look, when an object warms another object, there is no way that the same energy emitted from the first object (the source of the energy transfer) as an energy loss, can come back from the second, dependent object (the receiver of the energy transfer) as an extra energy gain to heat the source some more. This would violate both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
There is no violation, because there is an active heat source involved, i.e., the Sun. The First Law is energy conservation – energy is conserved if there is no source or sink. Here, there is a source. The Second Law is entropy of an isolated, closed system. A system with a source is not closed.
Look at it this way – Eskimos build igloos to keep warm. The ice of the igloo is assuredly colder than the Eskimo’s body temperature, so how does it keep him warm?
It keeps him warm because he is, himself, an active heat source, and the igloo impedes heat loss, so that some measure of it builds up inside. More concisely, the igloo provides insulation.
We’re not talking about “greenhouse gases” as heat sources, but as insulators. And, to the degree that heat transfer is purely radiative, they insulate the Earth. It is only by appealing to other means of heat transfer, as I have done, that you can make any claim that the effect of these gases is nil or negative on surface temperatures.
If you are on a quixotic quest to disprove bedrock radiative physics, which are being actively utilized daily to design functioning thermal control systems in a wide variety of practical applications, then you are going to fail. What you need to be doing is finding the loopholes in the narrative. The chinks in the armor, so to speak. The hasty assumptions, simplifications, and generalizations which render the models incomplete, and therefore susceptible to being overturned by more precise modeling considerations.
Bart: Spot on, thank you. I think a major thing to point out with the standard climate science narrative is that they have mistaken the diagnostic, (radiation levels at various points in the atmosphere), for the causative agent. The radiation level is, in reality, mostly the outcome of other processes.
TB said:
“The radiation level is, in reality, mostly the outcome of other processes.”
Yes.
The temperature along the slope of the adiabatic lapse rate is determined by mass, gravity and insolation.
Convection sorts out the energies and heights of all the molecules so that on average as many have too much energy for their position as have too little energy for their position so it all nets out and the system stays balanced.
The radiation at every level is a consequence of the temperatures of the molecules at that location and not a cause.
Any molecule situated at its correct height along the lapse rate has equal DWIR and UWIR so no effect on surface temperature.
Any molecule out of position does nave a DWIR / UWIR imbalance but since half have too much DWIR and half have too much UWIR it all nets out and the system stays balanced.
If anything other than mass, gravity or insolation seeks to disturb that balance then convection actively works to restore balance by moving molecules around according to the temperature induced density differences that arise as soon as ANY imbalance occurs.
Molecules with too much energy for their height rise upward and molecules with too little energy for their height fall downward.
That method of adjustment applies to molecules with variations in conductive capability so who ever thought it would not also apply to molecules with variations in radiative capability.
Trick says: March 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“They have been cooling down since, interrupted by gigantic magma eruptions warming them up again.”
Pse use complete quotes, makes things better to understand.
The deep oceans have been created hot, and afaik never completely froze over to depth, so the minimum temperature they ever reached was ~270K..
“I think you bring up a good point though in that the deep oceans T variations likely hardly notice a glacial to interglacial happening top side so I’d like to see a paleo discussion of the deep oceans Tmean instead of surface air Tmean plotted back eons against CO2. If you know one, please share.”
Lets start here: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
Any warming from above can only warm the surface layer (top ~200-300 meter). Below that the thermocline. That is the transition layer between the warm surface and the cold, deep oceans. No surface warming noticeable below the thermocline.
Kristian 7:27pm ”So in your world everything just becomes one big fuzzy fog where anything can occur in any direction at any time. Yuhuu!”
Yep. Not just to me, to physics also. That’s why physics describes the surface control volume as a bath of radiation. Truly coming at the Stephenson screens (or Kristian) from all directions, the pine trees radiating, the BBQs lit or not, houses, the blacktop or green grass surface, the swimming pool, the air at all vectors around you, the transformers on the telephone poles, everything that is matter since:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
To me the swimming pool is not “heated” it is “increased in temperature from a higher temperature source” like the sun at noon, my water (strike heater) “infrared-er”. I laughed out loud at Hansen 2013 that tb posted up about earlier then took off thread. In that paper, the first use of “infrared” becomes “causing infrared (heat) radiation to space”. Once past that defn. they drop infrared proceed use “heat” as a noun. This causes some hilarious situations “in my world” substituting infrared back in for “heat” as a noun:
“heat waves” become “infrared waves”
“mega-heatwaves” become “mega-infraredwaves”
“heat record” becomes “infrared record” what does that mean?
“reduce heat storage” becomes “reduce infrared storage” (How do you store infrared?? As caloric?)
The all time champion: “heat radiation to space” becomes “infrared radiation radiation to space”. I kid you not.
Now kidding aside, do you think “before heat has penetrated into the deeper ocean” is more or less meaningful & informative than “before infrared radiation has penetrated into the deeper ocean”. You know my POV.
Think about Hermite crater on the moon Diviner has at balmy 25K. Why is it not 2.8K CMB? Towering cliffs nearby might scatter some sunlight, conduction from nearby sunlit territory or from internal up thru regolith et. al.
Ben 8:55pm – What I mean discuss is the thermocline point at 7000m deep have an influenced T at all thru a 40k-100k year glacial cycle to the next much shorter interglacial back to glacial and so on. Hesitant to move threads as so much ref. conversation here given forgetfulness and the internet never forgets.
I would guess the 7000m tropical thermocline point T 1-2C doesn’t even know the cycles of the long term glacials let alone the sun sets/rises, would be interesting to see if have a cite.
Bart says, March 19, 2014 at 8:24 pm:
““Look, when an object warms another object, there is no way that the same energy emitted from the first object (the source of the energy transfer) as an energy loss, can come back from the second, dependent object (the receiver of the energy transfer) as an extra energy gain to heat the source some more. This would violate both the First and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
There is no violation, because there is an active heat source involved, i.e., the Sun. The First Law is energy conservation – energy is conserved if there is no source or sink. Here, there is a source. The Second Law is entropy of an isolated, closed system. A system with a source is not closed.”
Bart, why do you quote this part but do not address my further explanation of what you are in fact doing. I explicitly included a third body to show it.
You aren’t ‘insulating’ the surface with your ‘back radiation’. You’re ADDING extra energy to it to make it warmer, directly. In absolute terms. That is HEAT transfer from cold to hot, Bart. Whether you’d like to call it that or not. It is how a transfer of heat is defined in physics.
Look, our result will be the same. You just need to drop the Climate Church nonsense about ‘heating by back radiation’. There is only a forward flow of energy in a situation where one object heats another one, but the changing gradients between the interacting objects will modify the flow.
tallbloke says, March 19, 2014 at 8:29 pm:
“Bart: Spot on, thank you. I think a major thing to point out with the standard climate science narrative is that they have mistaken the diagnostic, (radiation levels at various points in the atmosphere), for the causative agent. The radiation level is, in reality, mostly the outcome of other processes.”
tb,
We can never uproot the AGW religion if we continue to absolutely refuse to touch the invented two opposed 390 UP, 324 DOWN radiative fluxes purporting to show how the atmosphere heats the surface some extra. It is a direct heating, tb. It is not ‘reduction of cooling rate’. It is ADDING to the internal energy of the surface to make it warmer. That is HEAT from cool atmosphere to warm surface. There is no way around it. The energy from the Sun is never restricted from escaping the surface. It comes in and it goes out. The outgoing from the surface is never reduced. It gets bigger and only because of the addition of the energy from the atmosphere, which as it turns out is actually the surface’s very own emitted energy (as a result of its temperature) recycled and returned to cause an even higher temperature – a ‘causative agent’. The surface heating itself by its own emitted thermal energy.
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
”…(approx. lapse rate i.e. g/Cp) can’t remove energy from a non-radiative atmosphere.”
Didn’t write that lapse rate could, g/Cp process dumps no energy to space which was Simpson’s mistake, leaves it all in the atm. Can’t remove energy this way from radiative atm. either.
”….then that only leaves you small patches of desert ….to conduct back to.”
Ok was the conductive energy transfer card removed from the table. Konrad hides water’s ability to conduct up his sleeve.
———————————-
Trick this is getting beyond ludicrous –
“Konrad hides water’s ability to conduct up his sleeve.”
You are in effect claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere can cool the oceans by conducting the energy removed by evaporation back to the oceans where it is then radiated to space!
This cannot possibly work. Firstly, as shown by empirical experiment, the surface is very poor at conductively cooling the atmosphere. Secondly deep liquid oceans heated at depth by SW do not suffer diurnal surface temperature variation anywhere close to allowing this.
There is no way out, a non-radiative atmosphere simply has no way of cooling the oceans because it has no effective means of cooling itself.
The reason you cannot find a even vaguely plausible excuse is because the Church of Radiative Climatology didn’t think one up for you. Their failed S-B calculations show that the oceans in the absence of atmosphere at Tmean of -18C. Their figure is out by around 98C!
The bottom line is this – The Gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology claims that for a given pressure, the net effect of a radiative atmosphere over our oceans is ocean warming. Empirical experiment proves this false. AGW is therefore a physical impossibility.
You can’t fight empirical experiment with this –
“confidence game operator”
“entertaining game of Monte”
“card up his sleeve”
“underpants gnomes”
“master of the Monte confidence game”
All my cards are on the table Trick. Repeatable empirical experiments anyone can build and run. Nothing hidden.
The only people pulling “tricks” here are the climastrologis, and you fell for it. They told you that sceptics were anti-science Luddites and all you needed to know were a few rote learned S-B calcs to combat them on the web.
They told you that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans was warming. They told you that the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR. Do you still believe them?
Konrad said:
“You are in effect claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere can cool the oceans by conducting the energy removed by evaporation back to the oceans where it is then radiated to space!”
An interesting point there that I’ve been pondering for a some time.
There is no doubt that the condensate from evaporation will increase radiation to space but what of latent heat ?
You see, latent heat being latent and not affecting temperature cannot radiate to space. When evaporation occurs the air temperature stays the same but the water surface cools.
Latent heat in water vapour increases buoyancy and distorts the lapse rate in the troposphere so cooling occurs more slowly with height than for the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
The descent phase results in warming at nearly double the moist rate that applied on the ascent so it does appear that the latent heat of evaporation is indeed recovered as sensible heat again on the descent.
That helps to maintain surface temperature by reducing the rate of surface cooling.
Evaporation in itself doesn’t cool the Earth system to space. All it does is cool the local sea surface whilst corresponding warming (via reduction of radiative heat loss) compensates for it elsewhere under a descending air mass.
The only true system cooling from evaporation is radiative heat loss upward from the inevitable condensate and shading of the surface from incoming solar energy.
The ocean temperature above the thermocline is due to atmospheric pressure setting the energy cost of a given amount of evaporation and so it makes no difference whether there are radiative gases or not.
If there is no atmospheric weight then the energy cost of evaporation is zero and it boils off to space instantly.
More pressure alters the numbers for the latent heat of evaporation so that a higher temperature is needed at a higher pressure for a given amount of evaporation.
Similar to the effect of the weight of the atmosphere with regard to the commencement of convection.
And to the effect of the weight of the atmosphere on the boiling points of all materials capable of boiling.
Konrad 10:35pm: “You are in effect claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere can cool the oceans by conducting the energy removed by evaporation back to the oceans where it is then radiated to space!”
I am not Konrad. Proof: 3/19 12:20pm = “..oceans would still have conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer to cool off to 255K….The atm. with 0.0 emissivity cools itself 2 ways by conductive energy transfer, convective energy transfer…”
For atm. emissivity 0.0, the oceans cool to 255K fast the same way they do now, they radiate energy off to space & not to the atm. Yes, given any imbalance – a non-radiative atmosphere can still have ability to in part transfer energy to the oceans by conducting & in part convecting (is much faster than conduction but still slower than radiation was) the energy removed by evaporation back to the oceans where it is then radiated to space.
Go after my 3/18 3:04am if you can. Much more to learn about your experiments doing that.
“Do you still believe them?”
Ahhh… the famous unnamed “them”. This is in part why I at least used underpants gnomes, Dr. Bohren cites et. al., at least I had a name for “them”. I understand the basic radiative physics in Bohren 2006 p.33. Wish you would spend the time just go read it. Debate that stuff. Those fundamentals are tasty, read the sections on Planck and S-B too. Bohren spices ’em up.
Here, think about Mars. The atm. emissivity there is not theoretical just barely > 0.0, it is for real. How does “them” know? The EEH is barely AGL. And nothing weird happens, behaves like the 1st law applied for earth; Mars surface can still radiate to space, not so much radiate to the atm. Conduction operates, its slowness doesn’t drive atm. Tmean to 90C and beyond. Convection happens fast – see the dust devil videos. Cleans the robots.
tallbloke says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:29 pm
“I think a major thing to point out with the standard climate science narrative is that they have mistaken the diagnostic, (radiation levels at various points in the atmosphere), for the causative agent. The radiation level is, in reality, mostly the outcome of other processes.”
——————————————————–
Rog, this is entirely the problem with the ERL argument, “cart before the horse”.
– They miscalculate a surface without radiative gas temp. Of 255K. (out by a teensy 98C for the oceans)
– They miscalculate an artificial “ERL” based on assumed IR opacity. (watch Trenberth arbitrarily opening the atmospheric IR “window”)
– Then they use an assumed lapse rate and back-calculate a “surface” temp. . (Lapse rate and vertical circulation, which generates the lapse rate, are constantly changing)
The whole game here is ignoring Sir George Simpson’s 1938 warning that you can’t solve for temperature profiles in a moving fluid atmosphere by “just working out the radiation”. Non-radiative transports are provably very variable, and worse they vary dramatically in response to changing levels of radiative gases.
Imagine claiming that increased radiative gases cause increased near surface warming and increased cooling at altitude but holding convective circulation static? It’s pseudo science. But here on this very thread is Trick trying to get away with dismissing varying non-radiative transports –
The idea of a static lapse rate is ludicrous. Meteorologists launch weather balloons every day to check how the local lapse rate has changed. They wouldn’t dare do their calcs on an assumed lapse rate.
“ERL” is junk science as well. The formation of clouds shows that the main radiative gas in our atmosphere is not “well mixed”. Moist air-masses on ascent are provably radiating more strongly than the temperature altitude they are passing through, especially during the “heat pulse” at dew point. In the ITCZ towering cumulus are regularly overshooting the tropopause. They are not radiating at a temperature set by altitude. Can it be argued that CO2 is well mixed and the “ERL” game can be applied to CO2? No. More than half of all energy CO2 radiates to space is acquired from conduction and release of latent heat in the air mass in which it is mixed.
Konrad 11:38pm: “..- Then they use an assumed lapse rate and back-calculate a “surface” temp. …”
They? Who? Where? Cite. No, Bohren cite does not do this; uses 1st law and measured inputs to get Tmean surface (not unique) & not from back calculating lapse, then starts the lapse at that Tmean surface.
Simpson’s mistake is not to use control volumes to count energy; winds just move energy inside the TOA control volume not outside it; he should have realized no change in energy content, no change in Tmean & Callendar corrected him on that point. Simpson did not run off and create his own blog to support his case. No relevant Simpson paper AFAIK.
10:35pm: All my cards are on the table Trick. Repeatable empirical experiments anyone can build and run. Nothing hidden.
No. You fail to analyze your experiments to any great degree. When I tried naively to help understand awhile back you ran for cover and I found out you had no real interest in discussing the fundamental physics behind the experiments.
Sure I can build your experiments; I am sure they will behave like all nature. It is your asserted conclusions do not disprove fundamental science, get no traction in any way. Publish ‘em if so.
Trick says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:14 pm
Konrad 10:35pm: “You are in effect claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere can cool the oceans by conducting the energy removed by evaporation back to the oceans where it is then radiated to space!”
I am not Konrad. Proof: 3/19 12:20pm = “..oceans would still have conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer to cool off to 255K….The atm. with 0.0 emissivity cools itself 2 ways by conductive energy transfer, convective energy transfer…”
For atm. emissivity 0.0, the oceans cool to 255K fast the same way they do now, they radiate energy off to space & not to the atm.
————————————
Full circle again Trick? As I said up-thread –
“Around in a circle and back to 255K. It’s like a dog returning to….
I wonder in the future if canines will be equipped with GPS collars?
“….in five blog comments you will arrive back at your gastric effluvia…you have arrived….”
Trick, that 255K doesn’t smell any better than the last time you checked. It’s time for some new tricks.”
And no Trick, that 255K does not smell any better this time, it’s still foul 😉
Empirical experiment shows that radiative cooling alone cannot stop the sun driving our oceans to ~80C. Your 255K figure is provably false for 71% of the earth’s surface.
Lets review your escape attempts –
– You tried claiming S-B equations could determine the surface temp of transparent oceans. Empirical experiment proves this false.
– You tried claiming that DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Empirical experiment proves this false.
– You tried claiming that the oceans would boil off in the absence of an atmosphere. But the Church of Radiative Climatology claimed -18C and the bulk of oceans solid ice, so this is irrelevant.
– You tried claiming that the climastrology calcs were for the rock under the oceans. But all solar SW is absorbed in the first ~200m of our deep oceans.
– You tried claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere could cool the oceans in part by adiabatic cooling. Yes, you did. No weaseling!
– You tried claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere could cool the oceans and then cool itself by conduction back to some other part of the earth. Were the oceans meant to transfer energy back to the 29% land and then the energy was radiated to space? Or was the ocean meant to conductively cool the atmosphere it had just heated? Ridiculous.
– And now you are back to claiming that IR radiation alone is enough to cool the oceans to 255K. But empirical experiment proves that false.
Full circle Trick. You have tried every exit, many of them twice. There is no escape. Any high school kid can build this –
Our oceans need a radiativly cooled atmosphere to cool them.
– The sun heats our oceans.
– The atmosphere cools our oceans.
– Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
– The net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
– The high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology and all their acolytes require vicious and sustained public flogging.
Konrad 12:23am: What is “this” you proved you false? 1st law? L&O emissivity? Atm. emissivity? Not a one. The rest is nothing new; all uncited, unsupported, inconsistent with text book physics. See the light Konrad; you are stuck outside the law looking in w/o Planck.
Trick says:
March 20, 2014 at 12:12 am
————————————
“You fail to analyze your experiments to any great degree.”
They demonstrate such fundamental points of actual physics no precise measurement is required. That is the whole point of those designs, they are designed to be easily replicated by others. Will you again demand that I use only an ISO certified kitchen? Smeg appliances? Brushed stainless German tapware? What?
The experiments simply demonstrate –
– CO2 both absorbs and emits LWIR
– Heating and cooling at the base of a fluid column will result in a far higher average temperature that heating at the base and cooling at the top.
– When heating and cooling a gas column at disparate points at the base, the temperature of the bulk of the gas will be driven by “surface” Tmax not Tav.
– Convective circulation can be driven by removing energy from a fluid column.
– The surface is better at conductively heating than conductively cooling a gas atmosphere.
– S-B equations alone cannot be used on transparent substances.
– The sun can drive water to 80C and beyond without evaporative cooling
These are basic physics principles largely ignored by the Church of Radiative Climatology
“When I tried naively to help understand awhile back you ran for cover and I found out you had no real interest in discussing the fundamental physics behind the experiments.”
You “tried naively to help”? How could you when you do not understand why S-B equations do not work on transparent materials? You don’t understand the “fundamental physics”
“Sure I can build your experiments; I am sure they will behave like all nature.”
They do, it’s just that you don’t understand nature. They show that radiative gases cool, whereas your religion claims warming.
“It is your asserted conclusions do not disprove fundamental science”
Nowhere do I claim they do. It is your claim that AGW is “fundamental science” that is in error.
“..get no traction in any way.”
Getting plenty of traction 😉 Quite a few Lukewarmer sceptics now realise they have to rethink.
“Publish ‘em if so”
Was this one of those inane “but, but, but it’s not peer reviewed” attempts? The experiments have been published on multiple blogs. No one believes “peer review” carries any weight at all anymore in “climate science”. The Climategate email “we’ll keep these papers out even if we have to re-define what peer review means..” blew that tactic away forever. It’s finished. It can never work again.
I have “published” in exactly the right place, where the most important people in the world can read and understand. That place is the Internet and the most important people in the world are free citizens. The people who just think themselves “important players” are all now implicated in the greatest assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy in the history of mankind. Their opinion is now worthless. All the fellow travellers in this inane hoax are about to get their public faces, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard. Who cares what they think?
Trick says:
March 20, 2014 at 12:47 am
“What is “this” you proved you false? 1st law? L&O emissivity? Atm. emissivity? Not a one. The rest is nothing new; all uncited, unsupported, inconsistent with text book physics”
————————————————-
Trick, still not getting it? I am not disproving any fundamental physics false. Nowhere do I claim this.
It’s just that you keep claiming the global warming hoax is fundamental physics. It is not.
What I am demonstrating is that S-B equations alone cannot determine the temperature profile of transparent oceans or gas atmospheres in a gravity field. Exactly as Sir George Simpson warned in 1938.
He warned climastologist Callendar not to ignore non-radiative transports. By by parametrising them as constants and worse, not understanding S-B calcs are unsuitable for transparent substances the climastrologists who ignored his warning went and got everything totally and utterly wrong.
There is nothing wrong with physics Trick, but there is plenty wrong with the radiative GHE hypothesis.
Applying S-B calcs to moving transparent fluids in a gravity field is not “fundamental physics” it is pseudo science.
Konrad 1:13am – Offers a few more explanations. Shows some work, thank you. However none disprove 1st law and Planck law, none disprove L&O surface emissivity 1.0, rounded, none disprove atm. emissivity ~0.8.
“Quite a few Lukewarmer sceptics now realise they have to rethink.” Who? Rethink what exactly – 1st law, Planck? How many? Cites?
Trick says:
March 20, 2014 at 1:40 am
————————————-
“However none disprove 1st law and Planck law, none disprove L&O surface emissivity 1.0, rounded, none disprove atm. Emissivity ~0.8.”
I have disproved you can just use surface IR emissivity alone for solar heating of the oceans. And your atmosphere emissivity of ~0.8? Well, you should look to your own. Trenberth is busy smashing the atmospheric window out to save his sorry hide…
“Quite a few Lukewarmer sceptics now realise they have to rethink.” Who?
Not saying 😉
“Rethink what exactly – 1st law, Planck? How many? Cites?”
I am clearly not challenging radiative physics, or basic thermodynamics, just their clear mis-application to moving transparent fluids in a gravity field by climastrologists. Did Planck say anything about that in his radiation studies? No. It is a foul tactic of climastrologists to misuse radiative physics then claim that anyone challenging them is challenging Planck. I am not challenging Planck, I am challenging you and yours Trick. Do you think it would have taken a second for Planck to work out that acrylic block problem? You couldn’t work it out, so you therefore your implication that I am challenging Planck’s work has absolutely no foundation.
Kristian says: March 19, 2014 at 11:09 am
Please read your link again. The linked Wiki page is mostly about the Carnot Cycle and Heat Engines, but there’s still hope for it when it mentions that “delta Q = 0”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Derivation_of_continuous_formula_for_adiabatic_heating_and_cooling
Note the incorporation of the Ideal Gas Law ‘PV = nRT’, which remains constant for a ‘fixed’ mass.
Any ‘work’ applied to a ‘rising mass during convection’ is supplied by external gravitational forces from the ‘surrounding medium’. The mass under observation is ‘less dense’ than the surrounding mass, thus, has ‘buoyancy’ within the medium. Hence, as gravity acts with less influence on the ‘mass under observation’, the surrounding medium ‘pushes’ the ‘mass’ upwards and supplies any energy requirement for ‘frictional losses’ (which, in a ‘real’ scenario, may also cause heat to ingress into ‘the mass’).
However, the behaviour of an ‘adiabat’ is an ‘academic construction’ and is ~never observed in nature, but permits insight to any energy transfer relationship that may occur.
Again, “delta Q = 0” means NO ENERGY TRANSFER, not just NO HEAT!
Kristian says: March 19, 2014 at 11:11 am
“Gee. Thanks, Professor!”
No problem! If you are unsure of anything, just ask. I’m sure that somebody here will be willing to help.
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad 1:58pm: “I have disproved you can just use surface IR emissivity alone for solar heating of the oceans.” That was easy to write; but no text book has been modified by your testing, the EEH remains well accepted in the field, the bulk of surface L&O emissivity testing remains 1.0, rounded; no law has been modified; nothing has come of it Konrad except your assertions. Else publish it; cite where the field changed, show the informed, critical folks free to judge. See what they do. If the field changes the L&O 1.0 rounded, then your work will have been valuable.
“Not saying.” Simply because clearly there are none.
I am clearly not challenging radiative physics, or basic thermodynamics…I am not challenging Planck, I am challenging you and yours Trick” See the top clip in this post. Clearly you are challenging basic fundamentals: 1st law, Planck, and emissivity measurements as incorrect as that is all I have used. I am astonished that you challenge the basic fundamentals. I am just the messenger, a poster on a blog discussing/citing published work. Sharpening my own understanding.
…your implication that I am challenging Planck’s work has absolutely no foundation.” See the top clip in this post. It has been good entertainment, some learning for me; not so much for science advancement.
Trick says: March 20, 2014 at 1:40 am
“Planck law”
Surely this is a ‘constant’ and NOT a ‘law’ Trick?
The point being that ‘multiple wave lengths’ (emitted/absorbed) can be ‘summed’ into one ‘average’ may be a ‘good idea’ to disclose the ‘main region of influence’ for any EM radiation, but the ‘Planck Constant’ is ‘impotent’ when the definition for, e.g. CO2 absorption/emission, discreet spectrograph absorption/emission lines are needed.
An ‘LBL’ (Line By Line) analysis is required. Moreover, HARTCODE gives more ‘definition’ than other LBL products.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
March 20, 2014 at 4:49 am
———————————-
I think someone gets it 😉
When it comes to the solar heating of materials semi-transparent to selected wavelengths, with slow internal non-radiative transports, then IR emissivity alone is a dead end.
In the absence of atmospheric cooling, S-B calcs using only emissivity give a figure of -18C for the oceans which is only around 98C out.
Hi Kristian. On this blog we have frequently pointed out the fallacies in the simplistic form of the back-radiation argument. But you’ll find that these days most of the greenhouse theory proponents don’t try to argue for that anyway. they deploy the EEH argument under discussion in this thread. If you visit the original post on Anders’ blog, you’ll find physicist Pekka Pirilla admits that even the EEH argument is “a simplification”. The truth is they are lost in the complexity of their own botched radiative-convective model, which doesn’t actually couple radiation and convection properly anyway.
Here you go, the simplest possible explanation of the AGW error:
i) S-B proposes a surface temperature of 255K for Earth as a rock. Never mind for the moment whether that 255K takes account of Earth’s deviation from a true blackbody.
ii) AGW theory recognises that the real temperature is 288K and accepts that the atmosphere causes the increase.
iii) They then say that convection is a net cooling process which should bring the 288K back down to 255K.
iv) Since the surface is not at 255K they propose net DWIR from radiative gases lifting it up to 288 again.
That is wrong and this is what actually happens:
i) 255K as a starting point.
ii) Adiabatic convection cannot begin until the surface temperature rises above 255K because conduction and convection are slower than radiation.
iii) For the first convective cycle only, convection is a cooling process which in part offsets the rise above 255K. It cannot bring it back to 255K or convection would cease.
iv) At the end of the first convective cycle, energy is coming back down at the same rate as it is going up. Convection no longer has a cooling effect and the temperature then stabilises at 288K at 1 bar pressure.
v) If one then proposes net DWIR as per AGW theory the surface temperature would be 311K but it obviously is not.
At base, that is all there is to it.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:00 pm
Latent heat in water vapour increases buoyancy and distorts the lapse rate in the troposphere so cooling occurs more slowly with height than for the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_47.htm says this
This latent heat of condensation is absorbed by the air, and the adiabatic cooling rate is decreased to 20 to 3°F per 1,000 feet instead of 5 1/2°F per 1,000 feet.
Buoyancy is caused by change of pressure, latent heat is caused by change of state
How does latent heat in water vapor increase buoyancy?
tallbloke says, March 20, 2014 at 7:11 am:
“Hi Kristian. On this blog we have frequently pointed out the fallacies in the simplistic form of the back-radiation argument. But you’ll find that these days most of the greenhouse theory proponents don’t try to argue for that anyway. they deploy the EEH argument under discussion in this thread. If you visit the original post on Anders’ blog, you’ll find physicist Pekka Pirilla admits that even the EEH argument is “a simplification”. The truth is they are lost in the complexity of their own botched radiative-convective model, which doesn’t actually couple radiation and convection properly anyway.”
Yes, I know and I agree. I have tried to raise the issue over at SoD’s blog as well. And all I get is evasion. They pretend to give a straight answer but in reality they meticulously avoid addressing the actual argument. They cling to the ‘radiation is everything’ meme and that’s it. They simply cannot be persuaded to include convective losses (they seem completely irrelevant to them) unless it involves ‘lapse rate warming’ (the ERL claim).
Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann are Kirchhoff are summarily thrown our way, ‘They all say it. They all predicted radiation to heat the surface of the Earth.’ Yeah, sure they did. What they tend to ‘forget’ (that is, ignore) is that each of these esteemed gentlemen explicitly and specifically assumed a purely radiative, ideal black body situation to derive their equations and state their laws.
But,
you have not pointed out the most obvious fallacy ‘in the simplistic form of the back-radiation argument,’ tb. That it actually all boils down to adding an extra heat flux to the surface coming from the cooler atmosphere. They will never admit it, of course. They would never SAY it. No, they CLAIM it’s simply ‘reducing the cooling rate’ of the surface. What they are in fact doing, though, is just the opposite. They’re enhancing its heating rate. An addition of energy to a system is not a reduction of outgoing. It’s an increase in incoming.
This is their trick. This is precisely what they are glossing over by using the NET argument. But the energy actually doing the ‘extra’ warming is not that coming from the Sun. The solar flux is never obstructed or reduced in any way from freely escaping the surface as loss. It is the extra energy coming down from the atmosphere, adding directly to the internal energy of the surface, that does the trick.
Nowhere in ‘real’ physics is such an effect ever suggested. In fact, the laws of thermodynamics do not allow it to occur in nature.
Konrad 5:29am: “In the absence of atmospheric cooling, S-B calcs using only emissivity give a figure of -18C for the oceans which is only around 98C out.”
This 98C would change the basic physics of a whole field of science if true. Yet no change occurs – why is that? Because 98C is not consistent with the most basic laws of physics, cite Bohren 2006.
******
Kristian 12:05pm: “They simply cannot be persuaded to include convective losses..”
Convective losses from the surface control volume ARE included, else it wouldn’t balance. There are no convective losses to count from the TOA control volume.
“They all predicted radiation to heat the surface of the Earth.”
This is the confusion of “heat” on display. “They” don’t predict an increase of temperature if the radiation integrated across the spectrum comes from a lower temperature source. In the case of radiation from a lower temperature source – all that radiation can do is raise the entropy of the earth and 1st law says the energy deposited counted to maintain the equilibrium energy balance.
Integrated over the spectrum, radiation from the sun increases the temperature of earth, radiation from the moon does not, only increases the entropy of the earth and deposits energy counted in the 1st law energy balance.
You can see the moon from earth, so radiation is arriving on earth from that body. What happens to it? Counted to maintain the surface control volume and TOA control volume energy balance because energy crosses their boundaries, does increase the entropy in those control volumes.
******
Stephen 7:34am: “ii) Adiabatic convection cannot begin until the surface temperature rises above 255K because conduction and convection are slower than radiation.”
Physics of free and forced convection is fluid increased in temperature from below in a gravity field; convection allowed to begin if surface temperature is below 255K.
Trick said:
“Physics of free and forced convection is fluid increased in temperature from below in a gravity field; convection allowed to begin if surface temperature is below 255K.”
The surface temperature cannot be below 255K at the distance from the sun that, according to S-B, produces a temperature of 255K in a purely radiative environment.
S-B predicts the absolute minimum that is possible at a given distance with radiative flows straight in and straight out.
So you can’t have the option of a starting point below 255K unless you move the planet further from the sun.
You can have convection starting at lower than 255K but only if the planet is further from the sun.
The surface temperature will only be as low as 255K if there is no atmosphere at all.
Any non radiative mode of energy transfer is slower than radiation and must raise the temperature above 255K.
If radiation straight in and straight out produces a temperature of 255K there is nothing left over to fuel conduction and convection.
The sequence has to be absorption by the surface to raise temperature above 255K and then convection starts by way of gaseous molecules rising from the surface.
Roger Clague asked:
“How does latent heat in water vapor increase buoyancy?”
Water vapour is more buoyant (lighter) than air.
The quote you provided is consistent with my comment.
The thing is that if ANY GHG including water vapour and CO2 distorts the lapse rate away from the pure adiabatic slope then the change in slope changes the height to which the gases will rise via convection without altering surface temperature.
Here is the kicker:
The ambient lapse rate is slope is distorted in the descent phase to exactly the extent of the distortion of the ambient lapse rate slope in the ascent phase but to the opposite ‘side’ of the pure adiabatic lapse rate.
The adjustment mechanism for lapse rate distortions away from the pure adiabatic lapse rate caused by GHGs is not found in other atmospheric layers as I first thought.
It is found in the equal and opposite distortion of the lapse rate slope in the descent and ascent phases within the same atmospheric layer
Radiative molecules acquire additional energy from surface IR and find themselves with an excess of energy for their position which makes them lighter relative to surrounding molecules in the atmosphere. That makes them rise to their ‘correct’ position above the adiabatic lapse rate slope.
Having risen, they radiate out to space more than the surrounding non radiative molecules and become colder than their surroundings so they find themselves too heavy and start to fall below the adiabatic lapse rate slope.
They pick up more IR from the surface and rise above the adiabatic lapse rate slope again to discharge it.
A continuous cycle.
In the ascent phase they are on the too warm side of the pure adiabatic lapse rate slope and in the descent phase they are on the too cool side of the pure adiabatic lapse rate slope but over a single convective cycle that averages out to zero.
In practice there are always as many too warm radiative molecules as there are too cool radiative molecules either side of the pure adiabatic lapse rate slope so it all nets out to zero.
Thus no effect on surface temperature because if any imbalance does arise in the short term the convective changes work to neutralise it.
Radiative molecules just move up and down in a constant recycling process relative to the adiabatic lapse rate slope with no net effect on surface temperature.
Stephen 2:51pm: ”Any non radiative mode of energy transfer is slower than radiation and must raise the temperature above 255K.”
Not if the non-radiative energy transfer meaning conductive, convective energy transfer is adiabatic Stephen. First cycle up lowers the T.
Example: Equilibrium 255K. At local patch of surface, the first slow non-radiative cycle up removes energy from surface control volume dumps it in the atm. on the lapse curve, lowers the surface Tmean say to 254, fast sun returns the surface to 255, the slow 1st adiabatic cycle completes, atm. dumps excess energy off lapse same amount to surface control volume, the T goes up to 256, the fast UWIR radiates away excess energy, returns to 255 equilibrium. Rinse and repeat.
This illustrates a stable system as we observe and consistent with Planck radiation, surface L&O&0.0atm. emissivity:
255 to 254 to 255 to 256 to 255. Weather. See gliders inhabit the thermal patch. Works at Tmean 288K also with atm. global emissivity measured 0.8. Add up all patches and Tmean = 255K at any instant because adiabatic & the EEH doesn’t change in this reversible process.
Actually, in the real process the temperatures are not quite adiabatic, are such that entropy increases, process is thus irreversible but the steady state global control volume does not acquire additional energy at any time, EEH remains the same.
Roger Clague says:
March 20, 2014 at 11:55 am
“How does latent heat in water vapour increase buoyancy?”
———————————————————————–
A good question,
Initially a moist airmass can rise faster than a dry airmass as water vapour is lighter than air and increases buoyancy of an airmass. However as the rising airmass adiabatically cools on assent and drops below its “dew point” the water vapour starts to condense reducing volume & buoyancy, but as it does it releases the latent heat of evaporation into the same air mass, which causes increase in buoyancy offsetting the buoyancy loss causes by water vapour condensing back to liquid.
In large cumulus clouds in the ITCZ this can cause a temperature increase of ~6C and actually increase buoyancy as condensation occurs, resulting in increased uplift and towering cumulus, some of which can even overshoot the tropopause.
But it gets complex. The smaller a rising moist airmass gets, and the more turbulent its edges, then there is more chance that diabatic energy loss from the airmass by conduction and radiation will quickly dump the energy released by condensation and actually reduce air mass volume and buoyancy.
For example a 1km diameter saturated airmass at 25C rising 2km would only need the outer 25~30m to drop to ambient temperatures for this buoyancy increase to be fully offset.
Which leads us to one of the most foul tales in all of the climate hoax. (Yes, yet another one…). In 2010 Makarieva et al released a Meteorology discussion paper dealing not with climate but weather. It looked at whether in some moist air masses the diabatic loss of latent heat after condensation could drive horizontal circulation and provide answers to the important question of “missing energy” in cyclone formation. The knights of consensus, Joel Shore, Nick Stokes, JimD, the Bunny and the Weasel rode out to do battle. They tried to destroy a valid paper in another discipline because it threatened not just all GCMs but all the radiative/convective models they had fabricated since 1990 to save the AGW hoax. Their actions were foul. They were prepared to set back science in another discipline just to defend their lies. They had not just scraped the bottom of the barrel, they had clawed shrieking through the rotten timber at the base and gotten elbows deep in the feculant ooze below. “Climate Science – achieving new low points in Science since 1988!”
Trick says:
March 20, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Konrad 5:29am: “In the absence of atmospheric cooling, S-B calcs using only emissivity give a figure of -18C for the oceans which is only around 98C out.”
“This 98C would change the basic physics of a whole field of science if true. Yet no change occurs – why is that? Because 98C is not consistent with the most basic laws of physics, cite Bohren 2006”
—————————————————
No Trick, It just utterly destroys the claims of climate pseudo scientists. Climate science is not a “field of science”, it is post normal pseudo science. None of my experiments show any violation of laws of physics. They just show what pseudo scientists intentionally ignored so they could claim radiative gases cause warming.
You cite Bohren 2006. Well have a look at the tripe he writes about the “greenhouse effect”. He uses the old two shell radiation only model. I show how that works with empirical experiment and point out – “This is what climastrolgists claim radiative gases do in our atmosphere. However the “two shell” radiation game collapses as soon as there is a non-radiative energy transport between the two shells.” Non-radiative transports Trick. Remember what Sir George Simpson said?
Can you find any reference to non-radiative transports in Bohrens explanation of his two shell radiation explanation of a radiative GHE? No. And no reference to thermal storage in gases or liquid either. You will not find the answers in Bohren 2006. Does this mean the rest of the work on radiation is bad or wrong? No, just the additional section on radiative GHE.
I say that in the absence of atmospheric cooling our oceans could reach 80C regardless of DWLWIR. Climate pseudo scientists claim -18C in the absence of DWLWIR. Lets see what the people with real brains, the engineers, say –
Click to access BSVol.3%20(2)%20Article%209.pdf
90C? Ouch! That’s hot! Now the water at the bottom of a solar pond is cannot radiativly cool, but nor can it receive DWLWIR. I am using a figure of ~80C just to be conservative.
In some experiments I have driven temperatures above 115C in transparent materials with SW absorption at depth. I could build a steam engine to run off a flat plate solar collector with no concentrating mirrors! (just not a very good one 😉 )
Trick, at our current atmospheric pressure, if the atmosphere did not cool our oceans the sun alone has the power to turn them to steam.
Our oceans need the atmosphere to cool them. And in turn the atmosphere needs some way to cool. Conduction back to a radiativly cooled surface can’t work when 71% of the planet’s surface is ocean. The only workable cooling method for our atmosphere is radiative gases. This means anthropogenic global warming is a physical impossibility. It really is that simple.
Konrad 12:14am: “None of my experiments show any violation of laws of physics.”
Concur 100%.
“(Bohren) uses the old two shell radiation only model.”
Konrad…verrry good, I am truly impressed you cracked a book (or at least the cite I gave) welcome to the light. Now we can actually have substantial physics discussion. Drop the Monte cards this instant, we can discuss basic assumptions and tasty equation numbers now. I’m tickled.
First, let me adjust Konrad focus from a blur, Bohren p. 32 Fig. 1.15 is not two shell model. It is 2 uniform infinite in lateral extent slabs. This is important. Focus.
Now I have seen a lot of discussion of two shell models on the internet and smile knowingly: just skip those discussions – they are as fruitless as assuming earth has no atm. Once one shell emits & absorbs to itself esp. thru an external medium, S-B is no longer applicable, it is undefined yet close inspection of those threads never notice, they continue apply S-B. Just skip them, participants will never see the light as you start here.
“Remember what Sir George Simpson said?”
Very well, he wrote winds inside TOA control volume can affect the energy content, change the control volume Tmean. His mistake is that since the winds don’t transport energy across the control volume at TOA, they can have no effect on energy content count for Tmean inside. Callendar pointed this mistake out in his own way – I use control volumes to find these mistakes.
Non-radiative transport can have no effect on energy content inside the TOA control volume as conductive, convective processes transport no energy across the TOA control volume border (only radiation can do that). Thus they can have no effect on Tmean inside the control volume, same for your experiments. Note this is NOT Tmean at surface, this is the Tmean at EEH for the total atm.
Now…absorb that. It is very, VERY important. Then we can continue schooling off Bohren 2006 et. al. stuff.
Konrad 12:14am: Cites a solar pond where artificial salinity gradient enables the lower water layer to be increased in temperature from above, thus prevents convection currents transporting energy off the bottom, just radiation. The pond rises significantly in Tmean to rebalance incoming radiation. I have been wondering how the 80C got in Konrad’s head, now I know.
This increase in temperature from above is not in any way going to happen in earth’s surface control volume as the emissivity of atm. is theoretically reduced below 0.8 to 0.0. The approx. -g/Cp lapse will still insure convection is allowed naturally. As less and less energy enters the surface control volume from above (same direction as solar incoming), the Tmean will reduce not rise as Konrad insists by 80C. The EEH will lower to the surface where the fast radiation is outgoing.
The non-radiative transports will adiabatically remove and add energy from/to atm. surface control volume until equilibrium is established at 255K given today’s net solar constant, L&O emissivity 1.0, rounded. I looked thru the rest of Bohren 2006, since it is a book on radiation there is little if any discussion of convection as Dr. Bohren handles that in his 1998 book which used to be free on the internet. Can’t find it anymore. Maybe others have stronger google-fu.
Konrad – a safe visit to the library won’t kill you. Anything that won’t kill you, only makes you stronger.
Trick says:
March 21, 2014 at 1:01 am
———————————
One of your better engagement attempts but let down so terribly by ending with “Now…absorb that. It is very, VERY important. Then we can continue schooling …” (made even worse by your use of the word “absorb” 😉 )
Trick, you disputed my claim of ~80C for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling. You got schooled. Yet you still think I am the one who needs to learn?
Sir George Simpson was right, there is no radiation only solution to temperature profiles in moving semi-transparent fluids in a gravity field. Non-radiative energy transports and storage need to be calculated as well.
The calculations you have been trying to use are instantaneous radiative flux equations. Despite that they are measured in watts (j/s), there is no true variable for “time”. And when it comes to non-radiative transport or storage, TIME IS EVERTHING.
For a vacuum isolated CV (like our planet), just as radiative energy flow within between materials within a CV can alter the balance of radiation entering and exiting the CV, and hence the rate it is accumulating or losing total energy, so to can altering non-radiative transports and storage patterns within the CV.
Just because the only energy entering and exiting such a CV is via radiation, it is not valid to just examine radiative flows within the CV to determine why an alteration to external balance (and internal accumulation/distribution) may be occurring. But this is just what climastrologists claim will work. And they are wrong, just as Sir George Simpson warned. Non-radiative energy transports and storage are variables but climastrologists considered them constants. Of course they got it wrong.
How wrong? Come on Trick, -18C compared to over 80C for 71% of the planet’s surface! You can’t laugh that one off. For climastrology that’s one of those “wincing so hard while biting your fist you find you have swallowed your eyes and are missing fingers” mistakes 😉
Trick, can you at least admit on this thread that I am correct, that in the absence of atmospheric cooling our oceans could rise to ~80C?
Trick says:
March 21, 2014 at 2:01 am
“Konrad 12:14am: Cites a solar pond where artificial salinity gradient enables the lower water layer to be increased in temperature from above, thus prevents convection currents transporting energy off the bottom, just radiation. The pond rises significantly in Tmean to rebalance incoming radiation. I have been wondering how the 80C got in Konrad’s head, now I know.”
————————————————————————————————-
No that won’t work.
A solar pond limits convective and evaporative cooling of the water at depth. And energy loss from depth to the surface is via conduction not “just radiation”.
I have stated that in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling that solar radiation alone can drive water to 80C or beyond. I am correct.
I have shown this by empirical experiment with huge conductive loses with a sample free to radiativly cool –
Want further real physics examples that disprove your pseudo science? Why not swimming pool covers? Why do clear swimming pool covers cause greater heating than opaque covers? Surely opaque covers absorb more solar SW? How do your failed S-B equations treat the ocean surface, transparent or opaque?
Trick there is no way out, the atmosphere does not heat our oceans, it cools them. And it in turn needs radiative gases to cool. AGW is a physical impossibility.
“I have been wondering how the 80C got in Konrad’s head…”
No, I got that figure from empirical experiment and later found confirmation in others work. But I do know how that -18C figure got into your head. Using a constant 240 w/m2 over a blackbody of infinite conductivity and determining the equilibrium temperature and setting the temperature of the ocean to that. For a transparent material heated at depth with solar SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2? That’s pure pseudo science, not physics.
For the equilibrium temperature for our oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR, your figure is out by ~98C. No handwaving can make an error this big go away.
Konrad 1:01am: “…there is no true variable for “time”.”
There is. At equilibrium from 1st law T is temperature in K: DT/dt = 0 = energy in – energy out (of the surface control volume containing air mass m and Cp) so Time isn’t a factor.
If an imbalance exists DT/dt given by: m*Cp*DT/dt = energy in – energy out.
If energy in is greater than energy out, DT/dt is positive and vice versa.
Take a look at eqn. 1.72. This eqn. is discussed in the following paragraph; it shows as atm. emissivity (epsilon) is reduced the DT/dt is negative meaning reducing temperature of the surface control volume from 289K to 255K given the constants. So this paragraph shows you are incorrect that surface control volume over ocean would rise to ~80C as in a convection constrained solar pond.
There must be something in 1.72 and the paragraph with which you disagree. Show me where. Remember non-radiative transport is adiabatic, unconstrained convection exists and has no effect on energy content in the surface CV (adiabatic nonradiative energy in = nonradiative energy out).
******
NB1: (absorbed definitely intended as pun. I get my grins too.)
NB2: “Non-radiative energy transports and storage need to be calculated as well.”
Storage yes, transport NO if it doesn’t cross the control volume no change in energy storage amount. Transport YES if it does cross the control volume. This is something I could not get across discussing your experiments. Doesn’t seem to be working here either. Or show me how energy storage can change when energy doesn’t cross the control volume.
Trick says:
March 21, 2014 at 3:35 am
—————————————
I am pointing out the critical importance of non-radiative transports and you come back with equations depending on the assumption –
“…There are no other modes of
energy transfer; the slabs are suspended in a vacuum….”
What were you thinking? I have already show the empirical experiment showing the two shell model working but it needs a high torr vacuum pump! The minute conductive coupling between the shells occurs the experiment fails.
And then I directly point out that for non-radiative transports time is a critical factor and you come back with utterly inapplicable maths and claim –
“..so Time isn’t a factor”
You refer to mass m. Just where is that in the calcs you cite? Nowhere, that’s where! How can you calculate energy accumulation over time without volume and mass? You can’t.
How do you dare challenge empirical experiment and empirical observation on the basis of rubbish calculations like this?!
Empirical evidence says that in the absence of atmospheric cooling, the sun would drive our oceans to 80C or beyond. No amount of maths that does not account for mass or time can ever disprove that. No amount of maths of whatever type can ever challenge empirical results.
It’s game over Trick. Without atmospheric cooling the oceans would be 98C higher than your S-B prediction. The oceans need the atmosphere to cool and the atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool. Global Warming due to CO2 emission is not physically possible.
Trick said:
“Example: Equilibrium 255K. At local patch of surface, the first slow non-radiative cycle up removes energy from surface control volume dumps it in the atm. on the lapse curve, lowers the surface Tmean say to 254, fast sun returns the surface to 255”
That doesn’t work.
The first slow non radiative cycle cannot lower the surface Tmean to 254 if it is slower than radiation.
To do so it must be faster than radiation and it is not.
That first slow non radiative cycle can only mitigate the rise above 255 during that first cycle.
Once the first cycle is complete the full effect of the slowdown is realised and the system’s new temperature is 288K.
That is the essential error in AGW theory.
One is applying brakes whilst the throttle remains the same. Heat is generated in the process of forcing the slowdown against the constant throttle.
That heat is then used to create the adiabatic overturning which maintains atmospheric height and is NOT available for radiation to space.
If it were radiated to space then the atmosphere would collapse back to the surface.
This is such basic thermodynamics that it is breathtaking that AGW theory pays no account to it.
So, one has the diabatic, radiative exchange between surface and space in balance,
and, once the atmosphere achieves its equilibrium height, one also has the adiabatic non-radiative energy exchange in balance.
Since it is atmospheric height that is the relevant variable for the adiabatic balance it follows that it is the slope of the lapse rate that varies and not the surface temperature.
A changed slope gives a changed atmospheric height without a changed surface temperature.
And circulation changes then bring the changed slope back to the pure adiabatic slope to keep the system stable.
Kristian says: March 19, 2014 at 10:03 pm
“We can never uproot the AGW religion if we continue to absolutely refuse to touch the invented two opposed 390 UP, 324 DOWN radiative fluxes purporting to show how the atmosphere heats the surface some extra.”
Let’s see if we can come up with something better.
Here’s the standard Trenberth cartoon: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ceres_brochure.php?page=2
We begin with deleting the backradiation nonsense.
To balance the budget again we also reduce the 350 W/m^2 surface radiation with 324 W/m^2.
Remaining is 40 W/m^2 radiating directly to space and 26 W/m^2 NET flux from surface to atmosphere. Compare that to 78 W/m^2 due evapotranspiration and 24 W/m^2 due thermals.
So the incoming 168W/m^2 AVERAGE solar radiation that heats the surface is nicely balanced with outgoing fluxes.
Also notice the 107 W/m^2 reflected radiation, due our albedo.
Only question to answer is, how 168 W/m^2 solar can explain our average surface temperature of ~290K. This can simply be explained by accepting that the deep oceans have been preheated to currently ~275K. So this 168 W/m^2 only has to warm the upper 200m or so another 15K.
(think 168 J/s solar energy warming water with a specific heat capacity of ~4,1)
Stephen 10:17am: “The first slow non radiative cycle cannot lower the surface Tmean to 254 if it is slower than radiation.”
Remove energy from a control volume, then, yes, temperature MUST lower by 1st law in the control volume with a time constant determined by mass and Cp. Even Konrad will get this once gets focused.
On a windy day, the thermal takes the energy out of the surface control volume much faster than the sun replaces it, the sun then increases the temperature of mass in the control volume, the thermal returns the energy to the mass. The mass is increased in temperature above equilibrium, it radiates the excess away. This is shown with fundamental eqn.s in Bohren 1998, but I observe you cannot read eqn.s so it useless to show you.
On a still day, not so easy to observe but still works.
“That is the essential error in AGW theory.”
It is the error in your theory b/c you can’t do the math. Throttles, pistons, cylinders thermostats just do not inhabit the atm., think radiative, convective, conductive energy transfer and control volumes w/time constants shown with eqn.s to explain the details.
Trick says: March 19, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Ben 8:55pm – What I mean discuss is the thermocline point at 7000m deep have an influenced T at all thru a 40k-100k year glacial cycle to the next much shorter interglacial back to glacial and so on. Hesitant to move threads as so much ref. conversation here given forgetfulness and the internet never forgets.
I would guess the 7000m tropical thermocline point T 1-2C doesn’t even know the cycles of the long term glacials let alone the sun sets/rises, would be interesting to see if have a cite
I assume you meant the 700m thermocline.
See eg this: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm
Station is at 31N, and midsummer the sun is almost directly overhead. Still solar only warms the
upper 200 m. Below that no change in temperature at all.
Daily variations in the tropics don’t show below ~10m.
See http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
page 725.
The Milankovitch cycles can only create the glacial / interglacial cycles when the DEEP ocean temperature is sufficiently low (< 275K) like we presently have.
In the Cretaceous we also had Milankovitch cycles, but only icecaps in the Antarctic interior, because the deep oceans were much warmer then today.
“On a windy day, the thermal takes the energy out of the surface control volume much faster than the sun replaces it, ”
That can happen locally within the system but not for the system as a whole since here is no wind in space.
A reduction in the speed of energy processing cannot cause cooling.
You are stuck with 255K as an irreducible minimum because that is set by the fastest possible speed of energy processing via radiation alone.
Konrad 4:29am: “I am pointing out the critical importance of non-radiative transports and you come back with equations depending on the assumption – “…There are no other modes of energy transfer; the slabs are suspended in a vacuum….”
Konrad – Verrry good, you demonstrate reading ability to write this, are making progress unlike Stephen who can’t crack a book b/c of his limited pre-req.s to understand it. I observe you have the pre-req.s. This is good, can debate the assumptions.
The slabs are in a vacuum to develop and demonstrate radiative transfer independently of convection/conduction which Stephen is having a hard time with when complicated by convective, conductive goings on. Demonstrates Bohren was right to do this for his students used to watching weather reports instead of climate reports.
“How can you calculate energy accumulation over time without volume and mass?”
Science can’t. Tickles me you have progressed to be able to even ask this question.
I take it Konrad found no fault in the paragraph after eqn. 1.72 explaining eqn. usefulness. So let’s discover why 1.72 has no time constant (I tried but Konrad failed focus). Bohren tells us rightly 1.72 Te is “radiative equilibrium temperature”. For equilibrium, no change in temperature written down by DT/dt = 0.0 so time & mass & Cp falls out of eqn. for equilibrium sort of by definition.
energy in – energy out = m*Cp*DT/dt = 0
since DTe/dt = 0.0 at equilibrium, that’s why they call it equilibrium for no change in Te since energy in = energy out and no energy accumulation in control volume over time. Focused?
Next up, let’s rearrange 1.72 and apply principle of superposition for linear independent processes.
How do you dare challenge empirical experiment and empirical observation on the basis of rubbish calculations like this?!
I would like to think I dared clear out some rubbish first. The reason is apply:
energy in – energy out = m*Cp*DT/dt
to your experiments having mass m, Cp and control volume applied for accounting energy in – energy out, as I tried once before, then you will understand experiment is 100% physics and draw the proper conclusions. This will be in the next few posts. I will go slow.
“Empirical evidence says that in the absence of atmospheric cooling, the sun would drive our oceans to 80C…”
True for solar ponds & empirical experiment where energy accumulates DT/dt not equal 0.0 up to equilibrium due to constrained convection or other constraints unlike earth system steady state equilibrium DT/dt = 0.0 in presence of radiative, conductive, convective physics; next up lets superpose unconstrained convection and conduction to earth system.
I wish Stephen could see how mass falls out of the equation at equilibrium, a little effort and he might yet do so.
Trick,
A reduction in the speed of energy processing cannot cause cooling. Only an increase can do that.
However, an observer in space will at first think that the surface has cooled because during the first convective cycle slightly less energy will be radiating to space whilst it is being diverted to raising up the new atmosphere.
The surface will still be at 255 or just above but the accumulating surplus is going into the atmosphere until the adiabatic loop closes and then the surface temperature rises to 288 at 1 bar for Earth.
However, an observer in space will still think it is 255 because that is all that gets out of the atmosphere.
The outside observer will just see a brief apparent dip in surface temperature caused by the short term reduction in energy flow but once the new atmosphere has taken what it needs to hold itself up then that dip disappears.
Your maths is clearly wrong.
Ben 12:45pm: “I assume you meant the 700m thermocline.Below that no change in temperature at all.”
No, I really meant the deepest part ocean. The 7000m bottom temperature showing a steady decline from above, is that very bottom influenced by passing 100ky glacials? I’m interested to know something about the time constant there. Must be a discussion somewhere.
******
Stephen 1:14pm: “That can happen locally within the system but not for the system as a whole since here is no wind in space.
Concur. Local patch is weather, the global theoretical 255K is climate.
”You are stuck with 255K as an irreducible minimum because that is set by the fastest possible speed of energy processing via radiation alone.”
Global yes, local no. If one local patch goes to 254K (weather) another is at 256K (weather) total 255K is climate. Hi pressure, low pressure systems come from this – right? Thus gliders & birds collect locally in thermals not globally. They like gather in high pressure systems not low pressure hurricanes though.
Trick said:
“Global yes, local no. If one local patch goes to 254K (weather) another is at 256K (weather) total 255K is climate.”
The 255K is merely an irreducible minimum surface temperature at a given distance from the sun on the basis of instant radiative exchange.
Add conduction and convection to slow down the process and the surface goes to 288K on Earth at 1mb.
The system continues radiating to space at 255K but within the new atmosphere you now have the additional store of energy (33K) to create weather and climate zones.
You need that extra 33K stored within the system to make climate and weather in the first place.
So, climate is not that initial 255K because it goes straight out as soon as it comes in. Always did and always will.
Climate is the 33K mass induced surface thermal enhancement.
No 33K, no climate and weather, no atmosphere.
Stephen 1:37pm ”…an observer in space will at first think that the surface has cooled…However, an observer in space will still think it is 255…”
?
Stephen,
That 255 K figure is the result of faulty analysis. It would be correct if the Earth was a thermal superconductor.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that an airless Earth would be at roughly the same temperature as our Moon. That would be ~ 198 Kelvin:
gc 2:09pm: “(255K) would be correct if the Earth was a thermal superconductor.”
255K Tmean surface control volume with atm. emissivity/absorptivity 0.0 is also correct rounded off with Earth measured as is because the L&O surface is measured at ~0.98 emissivity/absorptivity, rounded to 1.0 for simplicity of discussion close enough for gov. work to understand the fundamentals.
Concur earth with no atm. find surface 0.5-0.75 emissivity/absorptivity from being pounded into fine powder so small ~50% is finer than 100micron thermal IR and ~10% finer than 10micron band IR of interest.
Trick says: March 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Ben 12:45pm: “I assume you meant the 700m thermocline. Below that no change in temperature at all.”
No, I really meant the deepest part ocean. The 7000m bottom temperature showing a steady decline from above, is that very bottom influenced by passing 100ky glacials? I’m interested to know something about the time constant there. Must be a discussion somewhere.
The thermocline is the transition layer between ~100m and ~1000m in the image you linked. At the bottom there is no thermocline.
The temperature in the first 100m can vary quite a bit without influencing the deep oceans below ~1000m at all.
The deep oceans are warmed at the bottom, so this “heated” water will slowly rise towards the bottom of the thermocline. This explains imo the slowly rising temperature from the bottom up.
Not sure what the increasing pressure with depth does to the temperature.
In my text I showed warming and cooling rates for the deep oceans like 1K every 2-5 million years.
Ben Wouters says, March 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm:
“Only question to answer is, how 168 W/m^2 solar can explain our average surface temperature of ~290K. This can simply be explained by accepting that the deep oceans have been preheated to currently ~275K. So this 168 W/m^2 only has to warm the upper 200m or so another 15K. (think 168 J/s solar energy warming water with a specific heat capacity of ~4,1)”
Ben, you seem stuck on the notion that you can only heat a dynamic system (energy constantly entering and exiting) by pouring in MORE energy from the outside per unit of time. But you can just as well heat it by reducing the energy going OUT from it per unit of time and keep the incoming flux constant.
The 168 IN, 168 OUT is the situation after equilibration. To get there, though, the mean global surface first needed to warm considerably.
Stephen 1:52pm: “The 255K is merely an irreducible minimum surface temperature at a given distance from the sun on the basis of instant radiative exchange. Add conduction and convection to slow down the process and the surface goes to 288K on Earth at 1mb.”
Irreducible for climate, not for weather. Unconstrained adiabatic conduction and convection are also present at 255K theoretical atm. emissivity/absorption climate steady state. The increase in atm. emissivity/absorption from 0.0 to 0.8 increases energy count in surface control volume driving its Tmean=255K to Tmean=288K, the EEH rises from 0.0 agl to ~5km during this process. Satellites then measure 255K, thermometers measure 288K.
1st law, Planck radiation, adiabatic convection, conduction and surface emissivity/absorptivity measured at 1.0, rounded are all the physics needed to show this. Cite Bohren 2006 p. 33 eqn. 1.72 and the following paragraph et. al. like Bohren 1998.
******
Ben 3:00pm: thermocline: “a layer of water in an ocean or certain lakes, where the temperature gradient is greater than that of the warmer layer above and the colder layer below.”
This is true all the way down to 7000m if that picture is good. Interested to know what the thermocline to 7000m looks like as move thru a 100ky glacial to interglacial and back.
gallopingcamel says: March 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm
That 255 K figure is the result of faulty analysis. It would be correct if the Earth was a thermal superconductor.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that an airless Earth would be at roughly the same temperature as our Moon. That would be ~ 198 Kelvin
Fully agree. 255K would be the temperature of a greybody (albedo .30) if you somehow managed to spread incoming solar evenly around the whole sphere. Is not happening.
Every bit of uneven radiation lowers the average temperature below this absolute maximum.
Another thing is that earth looses on average also ~240 W/m^2. Looking from space to earth it would seem its temperature is ~255K, if you compare this amount of radiation with what a blackbody would emit at 255K.
Of course it doesn’t say anything about the SURFACE temperature on earth.
Compare this to a hut in an arctic area (eg -50C air temperature). Heaters inside on, temperature eg 20 C.
Depending on the isolation effectiveness the wall temperature could be eg -10C.
Measuring this temperature from outside doesn’t give you any clue for the inside temperature.
Trick says: March 21, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Ben 3:00pm: thermocline: “a layer of water in an ocean or certain lakes, where the temperature gradient is greater than that of the warmer layer above and the colder layer below.”
Correct. The temperature gradient between 100m and 1000m is much greater than the one from 1000m to 7000m. First 100m gradient is almost non existent.
So the thermocline is between ~100m and ~1000m.
Ben 3:15pm: “Compare this to a hut in an arctic area…:
Where convection is constrained so not comparable, similar as a farmer’s greenhouse is not comparable but functions under the same physics.
Kristian says: March 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm
Ben, you seem stuck on the notion that you can only heat a dynamic system (energy constantly entering and exiting) by pouring in MORE energy from the outside per unit of time.
Don’t think so. On a planet with average surface temperature 290K and no atmosphere the radiation to space would be ~400 W/m^2, and 400 W/m^2 would have to be supplied to maintain that temperature.
On earth with average surface temperature 290K we loose only 240 W/m^2 to space due to the atmosphere. This reducing of the energy loss to space is all the atmosphere can do at the very high temperatures on earth.
Assuming an airless “moonlike” earth with average surface temperature due solar ~197K, adding an earth like atmosphere (NO oceans) would probably increase the surface temperature a bit.
Ben 3:19pm – the thermocline gradient can be much greater above but is still there all the way to 7000m.
Trick says: March 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Ben 3:19pm – the thermocline gradient can be much greater above but is still there all the way to 7000m
And you point is? Pse re-read the definition you provided yourself.
Trick said:
“Unconstrained adiabatic conduction and convection are also present at 255K theoretical atm. emissivity/absorption climate steady state”
Only if the Earth with its current atmosphere were further from the sun.
At our distance and with our mass of atmosphere it is 288K
You can’t cool something by reducing the flow of energy through it whilst the energy arriving stays constant..
Atmospheres always warm planetary surfaces and they do it by conduction and convection, not radiation.
There is no cooling effect from convection after the first cycle has completed and the loop is closed.
gallopingcamel,
Doesn’t matter what the true temperature is for a given rock without an atmosphere. The mechanism that I have set out applies when an atmosphere is added.
Conduction and convection require a surface temperature enhancement to maintain the cycle.
AGW theory doesn’t recognise that.
Kristian says: March 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm
To expand a little more:
given the deep ocean temperature of ~275K, a shallow surface layer is warmed to ~290K.
Question becomes: how much of this warming is due to the sun, and how much due to the atmosphere.
I say sun 15K, atmosphere 0K, but if it turns out to be 14K vs 1K, fine with me.
Ben 3:49: My point is an interest in the T variation at very bottom of thermocline thru interglacial cycles.
Stephen 3:49: if you could understand the formulas your answers are easy. We were talking an atm. 0.0 emissivity/absorption earth orbit surface balance at 255K. Your ADD kicked in.
Trick says: March 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Ben 3:49: My point is an interest in the T variation at very bottom of thermocline thru interglacial cycles
Ok fine, that is around 1000m then.
The deep oceans don’t react on heating or cooling at the surface. Lowest influence of solar is the bottom of the thermocline.
The T variations below the thermocline are in the order of 1K every 2 – 5 million years.
Only exception I can see is in a glacial, when a large part of the oceans is covered with surface ice, preventing the deep oceans from cooling. In that case the deep oceans could warm up as fast as 1K every 3000 – 5000 years.
Kristian says:
March 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm
“Ben, you seem stuck on the notion that you can only heat a dynamic system (energy constantly entering and exiting) by pouring in MORE energy from the outside per unit of time. But you can just as well heat it by reducing the energy going OUT from it per unit of time and keep the incoming flux constant.
The 168 IN, 168 OUT is the situation after equilibration. To get there, though, the mean global surface first needed to warm considerably”
—————————————————–
Kristian,
This is indeed the heart of the matter. Working back from an assumption of radiative equilibrium is a dead end as to determining energy that has been stored in the land, oceans and atmosphere over time. Changes in non-radiative transports within and between the land, oceans and atmosphere can alter the amount of energy being absorbed from the sun or lost to space via radiation.
The net effect of radiative emission from the land, oceans and atmosphere is energy loss to space.
The net effect of non-radiative processes is solar energy storage.
Ben Wouters says, March 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm:
“Assuming an airless “moonlike” earth with average surface temperature due solar ~197K, adding an earth like atmosphere (NO oceans) would probably increase the surface temperature a bit.”
Why just ‘a bit’? I’m pretty sure the mean temperatures would slowly, but steadily rise, in the end by many tens of degrees.
Trick says:
March 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm
————————————
Round and round the mulberry bush…
Now with half a pound of treacle –
“Verrry good, you demonstrate reading ability… This is good … Stephen is having a hard time… Tickles me you have progressed to write this….I will go slow…”
Trick, it doesn’t matter how fast or slow you go round the mulberry bush, your weasel is still popped.
“The slabs are in a vacuum to develop and demonstrate radiative transfer independently of convection/conduction”
You cant do that, that is scientifically invalid. If the slabs are conductively coupled, then some of the energy being radiated was acquired by conduction. There is no radiation only solution and any attempt to solve the energy transports separately is clearly an attempt to deceive.
“Bohren tells us rightly 1.72 Te is “radiative equilibrium temperature”
No, Bohen is wrong*, you cannot determine the radiative equilibrium temperature of a material without knowing volume, specific heat, emissivity, and translucency/transparency and of course the frequency, cycle of incoming radiation(no, averages DO NOT WORK) and above all TIME.
“since DTe/dt = 0.0 at equilibrium, that’s why they call it equilibrium for no change in Te since energy in = energy out and no energy accumulation in control volume over time. Focused?”
Focused? No, I don’t bother with that. I already know where you are trying to go. It’s pointless. Working back from an assumption of radiative equilibrium and trying to work out internal energy of the system by radiative transports and emissivity alone.
“Next up, let’s rearrange 1.72 and apply principle of superposition for linear independent processes.”
Let’s not. Superimposition? Forget it. There is no way out with that trick. Radiative and non-radiative systems are coupled on our planet and must be solved for simultaneously not separately. Everyone can see what you are trying.
It’s the same old game. Superconducting sphere at 255K, add a SW transparent outer sphere of lower emissivity, set the outer sphere to 255K and back calculate the new temperature of the inner sphere using assumed lapse rate. It’s pseudo science and no amount of maths games will ever make it right.
And this ?-
“True for solar ponds & empirical experiment where energy accumulates DT/dt not equal 0.0 up to equilibrium due to constrained convection or other constraints unlike earth system steady state equilibrium DT/dt = 0.0 in presence of radiative, conductive, convective physics”
So a figure of 80C for solar heated water with no atmospheric cooling is correct for empirical experiment, solar ponds, solar hot water systems but not oceans without a radiativly cooled atmosphere? Give me a break!
Trick, it doesn’t matter how many times you run round the Mulberry bush, your weasel has been popped. Without atmospheric cooling our oceans would heat to ~80C or higher. They need atmospheric cooling and the only way for the atmosphere to cool is via radiative gases. This proves that AGW is not physically possible.
*Bohren is sceptical. Re-read section 1.6. Take note – the section refers to the rest of the textbook but no other section refers back to 1.6. Why? Because his work is a textbook so 1.6 was added so the 2006 publication would be put on the approved study list. Re-read carefully, Bohren is smart and has covered his a$$ with plenty of caveats- “the slabs are suspended in a vacuum”, “possibly to frame testable hypothesis, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously”, “This suggests temperatures in the lower atmosphere could increase.”
“possibly”, “Judiciously”, “suggests”, “could”? Bohren is smart enough to have worked out that any attempt to increase lower atmosphere temp will just cause the speed of vertical circulation and non-radiative transport away from the surface to increase.
Konrad says, March 21, 2014 at 10:31 pm:
“This is indeed the heart of the matter. Working back from an assumption of radiative equilibrium is a dead end as to determining energy that has been stored in the land, oceans and atmosphere over time. Changes in non-radiative transports within and between the land, oceans and atmosphere can alter the amount of energy being absorbed from the sun or lost to space via radiation.
The net effect of radiative emission from the land, oceans and atmosphere is energy loss to space.
The net effect of non-radiative processes is solar energy storage.”
This is exactly how our global climate is run. The Sun + The Ocean.
The ocean is the big administrator of the solar energy. It determines how much is to be soaked up (spatial and temporal distribution of cloud cover) and likewise how much is to be expelled back out (pressure gradients>wind shear>evaporation rates), through the tightly and dynamically coupled relationship between it and the atmosphere above it. More soaked up and/or less expelled and we have general storage of solar energy. Less soaked up and/or more expelled and we have general depletion of solar energy.
The Pacific Ocean and the ENSO process really is the elephant in the room here. The sun is of course the ultimate provider of the energy, pulling the final strings, but the ocean is not just its passive reservoir, but just as much its highly active distributor, in a way its appointed helmsman.
Konrad says, March 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm:
““possibly”, “Judiciously”, “suggests”, “could”? Bohren is smart enough to have worked out that any attempt to increase lower atmosphere temp will just cause the speed of vertical circulation and non-radiative transport away from the surface to increase.”
The easiest ‘experiment’ you could do to verify how radiation is only along for the ride in the troposphere is to hold your hand close to a candle flame out in the calm open air, let’s say 10-15 cm away from it to the side. Remember that the fire is incredibly hot compared to the surface of the earth (well, apart from fresh lava, that is*) and especially compared to the air surrounding it, so radiative heat transfer should be highly significant in this situation. And it is. But there’s another mechanism around that pretty much effortlessly negates its effect on the air around the candle. Just 10-15 cm away from the flame, to the side, you can practically no longer feel its heat. Why not? Where has it gone?
It’s gone UP. The radiation streaming out from the candle flame is quickly absorbed by the air around it, warming it. But as soon as this happens, the air expands, grows less dense and floats up. Convection. It happens instantaneously, automatically.
Place your hand 10-15 cm above the flame instead and you will most certainly feel the heat. Most likely to the extent that you will soon have to pull it back.
The energy warming the air comes from the radiation. But the mechanism transporting it up and away is convection.
This is how the troposphere works.
*Those of you that have flown above a field of fresh lava (or a bush fire) can testify to the power of the convective currents rising up from it.
Kristian says:
March 21, 2014 at 11:45 pm
———————————–
We call it planet Earth, but it is really planet Ocean.
The oceans are the primary solar energy storage and distribution system and they can accumulate solar energy at an alarming rate if it were not for atmospheric cooling.
Prior to the global warming hoax, atmospheric physics treated the hydrological cycle as a giant vapour/condensate heat pump sucking energy from the surface and dumping it to space. For this process to work the upper atmosphere must be able to radiativly cool to space. Reducing the radiative ability of the atmosphere would just reduce the efficiency of this cooling mechanism.
The half baked pseudo science of global warming is claiming the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is ocean warming, not cooling. It’s utter madness.
You will note that Trick has to keep running back again and again to the provably incorrect figure of -18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR, just to support the false claim that our atmosphere warms our oceans. The atmosphere of course doesn’t heat the oceans. Atmospheric pressure allows the sun to heat the oceans. But you can’t heat water with hot air over the skin evaporation layer or incident LWIR. Any claim that any atmospheric process other than pressure warms our oceans is clearly mendacious.
This is why climastologists like to run back to just saying “surface” to avoid the issue of solar (and geothermal) heating and atmospheric cooling of the oceans. By treating the planet as a desert planet they can more easily play their little “photonic ping-pong” game. But it doesn’t even work for a desert planet.
While surface Tmin at night for a desert planet under a non-radiative atmosphere would be lower, surface Tmax during the day would be far higher. Conductive cooling to the atmosphere normally reduces surface Tmax during the day, but if the atmosphere has no effective way to cool, then it cannot do much to reduce surface Tmax.
So how do climastrologists get around this problem? Simple, they throw away the diurnal cycle and set atmospheric temperature to a fictitious surface Tav. But the “AGW Gravity Gremlin” says you can’t do that –
It is also worth reviewing this experiment that shows how important conductive/convective cooling is compared to radiation at lower temperatures –
Click to access Didfyz%20paper.pdf
Radiative cooling is dependant on the temperature of the material to be cooled, whereas conductive cooling is dependant on the temperature differential between the cooling material and the gas cooling it. A non-radiative atmosphere reduces the conductive/convective cooling ability of the atmosphere to reduce surface Tmax.
For ocean planets – radiative atmospheres cool, non-radiative atmospheres heat
For desert planets – radiative atmospheres warm slightly, non-radiative atmospheres heat.
That is why climastrologists want to avoid the ocean question and just do “surface”, because a radiative atmosphere over an ocean planet always cools.
Konrad 11:39pm: “You can’t do that, that is scientifically invalid….Boh(r)en is wrong ..Superimposition?”
1:25am: ”You will note that Trick has to keep running back again and again to the provably incorrect figure of –18C”
Not enough judicious use of science in this Konrad to even figure out what you mean by assertion aka bluster, but I give you credit for reading. You offer nothing new to disprove the 1st law, Planck radiation, L&O&atm. emissivity measurement in eqn. 1.72 useful for discussion of basic atm. physics in its theoretical correct 255K earth system equilibrium with EEH 0 agl:
“(Fig 1.15) is at best an analogue, useful for helping us understand some basic physics, possibly to frame testable hypotheses, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously.”
******
Kristian 12:21am: ”The energy warming the air comes from the radiation”
The energy for increasing surface T of your hand comes from the process in the candle system using up oxygen and hc, crosses the control volume boundary into your skin thru radiative, conductive, convective energy transfers. Which can be superposed and get the same feeling.
Good example SWIR raising T of lower T mass. Adds to the discussion. The flame is using up an energy reservoir, the radiation/convection is not – may help Konrad see why winds can’t increase energy or raise cv Tmean, only the sun can, winds just transport energy from sun which is using up hydrogen as Callendar corrected Simpson.
Here’s another – spread your arms wide. Then bring your palms quickly together in front of you about 1/2 inch apart. Feel the result?
Constrain that convection and learn what happens to the wax. And that uprising unconstrained convection from a fluid increased T from below in a gravity field – dumps the energy into the TOA control volume radiation bath which then radiates to space and the surface. Makes it more windy above the flame tip.
Stephen 3:49pm “Climate is the 33K mass induced surface thermal enhancement.”
Climate is the Tmean 288K, EEH at ~5km radiating 255K to satellites & of course can substitute radiation for mass in this since:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
Konrad 1:25am: ..just to support the false claim that our atmosphere warms our oceans…
You set up a strawman (the atm. warms the oceans) then stab it (false claim) when lower temperature atm. cannot increase the higher temperature ocean surface is plainly evident, not in dispute in any way.
The emissivity of the atm. allows the sun to modulate the surface L&O temperature, see eqn. 1.72 based on 1st law, Planck radiation, measured L&O&atm. emissivity which you haven’t argued against with judicious science because you can’t.
Ok, you post yet another experiment. I’ll read thru it.
Ultimately all the claims of climastrologis are based on tricks or lies. They use several separate explanations of how radiative gases warm and swap between explanations the minute they get cornered. Always running in circles, always moving the goal posts. But once you know the tricks you can always spot them. They may be dressed up in brand new equations, but for each explanation the same tricks remains. The basic games are as follows –
1. The Two Shell game. (ERL)
The claim – SW heated sphere surrounded by a SW transparent shell of lower emissivity will be driven to a higher temperature by IR exchange between the shells.
The tricks – Conductive coupling between the shells never solved simultaneously. Tmean for the inner shell in absence of the outer always incorrectly calculated. New Tmean for inner shell always back calculated by assumed lapse rate.
2. IR opacity absorption/emission level game
The claim – Due to IR opacity radiative gases warm at low altitude and cool at high atltitude.
The trick – Speed of vertical circulation held constant for increasing concentration of radiative gases to show surface warming
3. The frozen oceans game
The claim – black body calcs show a -18C Tmean for the oceans without DWLWIR to warm them.
The tricks – black body calcs are out by 98C. DWLWIR cannot heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. The “snow line” in the solar system is out at 3AU.
4. The non-radiative atmosphere games
The claims – A non-radiative atmosphere would have its temperature set by surface Tmean
The tricks – Diurnal cycle and atmospheric circulation ignored (surface Tmax would drive the temp of such an atmosphere). Conductive cooling and heating of the atmosphere by the surface held equal despite gravity. Loss of effective conductive cooling ignored in calculating surface temp.
5. The clouds don’t cool game
The claim – clouds reduce incoming solar SW but increase DWLWIR for no net effect.
The trick – DWLWIR has no effect on ocean temps, therefore no effect over 71% of the planet.
6. The “averages” game
The claim – calculating incoming solar as constant 240 w/m2 is just fine
The trick – It only works for superconducting materials of zero volume. Incoming solar peaks at ~1000 w/m2 and not using the correct figure or diurnal cycle for the heating of materials with slow internal non-radiative energy transports will always give the wrong answer.
7. The “chocked radiator” game
The claim – Initially radiative gases cause cooling and drive convective circulation, but after a certain concentration they start to become less effective radiators.
The tricks – there is no fixed ERL in the atmosphere. Gases cannot be treated as solid in terms of a radiator re-radiating its own fins.
8. The Trenberthian pole-wise energy flow game
The claim – Atmospheric circulation is primarily driven by equator to pole energy flow, with OLR being just a feedback from adiabatic compression in the descending leg of circulation cells.
The tricks – Massive buoyancy changes due to evaporation ignored. Vertical circulation is the shortest route for energy escape to space from the surface. Empirical evidence shows IR emission from ascending translating and descending air masses in Hadley circulation.
Now the important thing to note with all the tricks is that the “errors” do not lay in the calculations, they lay in the physical assumptions that underlie the calculations. The calculations can be carried out correctly, but if the physical processes they are meant to calculate are pseudo scientific tripe with no basis in physical reality there is no point to the calculations. This is why “Trick” wants to keep running back to his blackbody calculations. Because the maths shows global warming. But that maths is based on provably flawed physical assumptions.
So when an acolyte of the Church of Radiative Climatology demands that you follow their calculations, stop. Do not ask how you do the maths, ask instead what does the maths do? Look close, because one of the tricks above will always be somewhere at the core of any calculations that show radiative gases warming our planet.
Trick says:
March 22, 2014 at 3:01 am
“You set up a strawman (the atm. warms the oceans) then stab it (false claim) when lower temperature atm. cannot increase the higher temperature ocean surface is plainly evident, not in dispute in any way.”
————————————
WOW!
Trick, radiative gases working to raise the “surface” temperature of the planet ~33C is the fundamental claim of the Church of Radiative Climatology. You have argued black and blue up and down this thread that the oceans in the absence of radiative gases would have a Tmean of 255K.
Now you are claiming “ the atm. warms the oceans” was just a “strawman”?! I haven’t stabbed a strawman. I have staked the pseudo scientific vampire of global warming straight though the heart with physics hammered home with empirical experiment.
Just on this very thread you were claiming that except for a seasonally varying equatorial band the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR. Now faced with inescapable empirical evidence you swap to a claim never written in the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology –
“lower temperature atm. cannot increase the higher temperature ocean surface is plainly evident”
Your new claim is correct, but you certainly didn’t claim it plainly evident in how many previous comments on this thread? You surely are not going to claim that you never supported a figure of 255K for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR?
Just how many times did I directly ask you on this thread (10? 11?) if the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans was cooling or warming? If the answer was so plainly evident now, why not then?
So let’s work this through –
– You have finally admitted that radiative gases are our atmospheres primary cooling mechanism
– You have finally admitted the atmosphere is not warming the oceans
– which means the oceans are warming the atmosphere and radiative gases are cooling the atmosphere
– which as I indicated many comments ago is “game over” for AGW.
TB, we don’t seem to have uncovered any ‘new science’ in this thread. Perhaps we’re looking at it from the wrong perspective, I mean, ‘if the answer was 42, we’d ask what the question was’. 😉
This thread investigates a 33C difference, Yes? Then surely ’33C / ~7.2C/km = ~4.6km’!
Data ‘eye-balled’ from ‘Fig.2’ @:
Click to access L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS83NjAyNw==.pdf
However, this ‘must’ be an ‘average’ altitude that is of greatly reducing influence from altitudes higher than the tropopause (isn’t the tropopause at about the altitude where liquid H2O surrenders its existence and convection falters?).
Bearing in mind that ~4.6km was calculated from an ‘average of an average’, I’m considering the supposition that the ’33C’ ‘enhancement’ is mostly due to a ‘thermal energy dump’ by ‘latent transport’ from ‘ocean heat content’.
This may seem to be a ‘mad’ estimation, but ‘latency’ is in ‘centre frame’ for the scenario.
Your thoughts? 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad 1:25am, 3:19am dances like a fire hose under pressure, offers claims, publishes not one paper in support, obtains no change from any text book author. He resorts to standard magician tool kit: The pledge, the turn, the prestige. All this on blogs for entertainment, nothing published.
”Now you are claiming “ the atm. warms the oceans” was just a “strawman”?! “
The oceans in the absence of radiative gases meaning 0.0 emissivity/absorptivity atm. would have a near surface Tmean of 255K, EEH 0; the sun would be enabled to increase the Tmean to 288K when the atm. emissivity is increased to normal 0.8, EEH ~5km as measured 255K by satellites.
“..false claim that our atmosphere warms our oceans…For desert planets – radiative atmospheres warm slightly…..” Approx. -g/Cp turns to +g/Cp on desert planet? Publish an interesting paper Konrad.
“…maths is based on provably flawed physical assumptions.” Konrad has to invent his own atm. science since he draws incorrect conclusions from experiments he claims proved there are flaws in and can’t support 1st law, Planck radiation, L&O&atm. emissivity measurements in basic eqn. 1.72.
Konrad – I’ll go with the fundamentals as explained in the bulk of text books. I also prefer know the original author words, you were right to read Bohren 2006 but incorrect to write he was wrong.
1. Can’t use S-B on a shell radiating to itself.
2. Speed of vertical circulation is insufficient to exceed escape velocity, the energy stays in TOA control volume.
3. True: DWLWIR cannot heat oceans, since only sun does. Added DWLWIR photons deposit energy onto surface and into oceans, the L&O entropy increases.
4. Loss of effective conductive cooling is not ignored in calculating surface temp. Atmospheric circulation not ignored, science knows deserts occur on lee side of mountain ranges, winds don’t create/destroy energy use up no fuel, stay in control volume.
5. DWLWIR increases the ocean’s entropy so has an effect
6. No need for assuming earth superconducting, zero volume, it is measured at 0.95-0.98 emissivity/absorptivity – this is scientifically rounded to 1.0 for basic discussions.
7. This makes no sense at all. That in itself is the counterargument.
8. Vertical circulation doesn’t escape to space, doesn’t approach escape velocity. Except for hydrogen, which is why relatively so little hydrogen remains.
“….tricks above will always be somewhere at the core of any calculations that show radiative gases warming our planet…”
No tricks except in game of hockey, fundamentals do show radiative gases cannot warm the planet, they use up no fuel, only the sun SW warms the planet.
Konrad 3:53am : “So let’s work this through –
– You have finally admitted that radiative gases are our atmospheres primary cooling mechanism
– You have finally admitted the atmosphere is not warming the oceans
– which means the oceans are warming the atmosphere and radiative gases are cooling the atmosphere
– which as I indicated many comments ago is “game over” for AGW.”
Your words. I’ll admit TOA radiation to space is the only cooling mechanism for the entire system, the sun warms the land, oceans and atm., all matter radiates, at all frequencies all the time. 1st law, Planck radiation, L&O&atm. emissivity basically work as measured in eqn. 1.72.
suricat says:
March 22, 2014 at 4:48 am
———————————
Ah but Ray, the point is not to establish new science, but to return to the old science. We seek to restore the traditional scientific method and purge our world of the political tool that is “post normal science”.
Remember the good old days? Back then it was simple, evaporation cooled the oceans and radiative gases cooled the atmosphere. I say we should return to the real science. What say you?
Trick says:
March 22, 2014 at 4:48 am
————————————–
And around the mulberry bush you go again, but you weasel is still popped.
“Konrad 1:25am, 3:19am dances like a fire hose under pressure, offers claims, publishes not one paper in support, obtains no change from any text book author.”
And you are clearly twisting like a weasel, resorting to “call to authority” argument. And your authority? Re-read Bohren, he clearly doesn’t believe his section 1.6 is good for anything except political conformity and getting on a textbook list.
“He resorts to standard magician tool kit: The pledge, the turn, the prestige. All this on blogs for entertainment, nothing published.”
No tricks, just repeatable empirical experiments and evidence. Nothing hidden.
“The oceans in the absence of radiative gases meaning 0.0 emissivity/absorptivity atm. would have a near surface Tmean of 255K, EEH 0; the sun would be enabled to increase the Tmean to 288K when the atm. emissivity is increased to normal 0.8, EEH ~5km as measured 255K by satellites.”
And what is this except another claim that our oceans would be frozen under a non-radiative atmosphere? “Sun enabled increase”? You are just finding new words to play the same old tricks, claiming that radiative gases slow the cooling of the oceans and raise their temperature higher than the the sun alone could. It can’t work Trick, you have the figure for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling out by 98C. And no, it’s no good trying to claim that a non-radiative atmosphere can provide the same cooling, because it would have no way of cooling.
“Konrad has to invent his own atm. Science..”
Excuse me? Just which of my empirical experiments does not demonstrate to an actual physical process in our oceans or atmosphere?
“1st law, Planck radiation, L&O&atm. emissivity basically work as measured in eqn. 1.72”
You keep repeating this like a religious mantra. Is it a prayer? Perhaps this will help –
“There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.” – A.N.Whitehead
Trick, the problem here is that no matter how good your calculations are, they show a radiative atmosphere slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. This cannot possibly be correct. Empirical experiment shows that radiative cooling alone is not enough to stop the sun driving the oceans to 80C and beyond. And a non-radiative atmosphere cannot cool our oceans because it has no way to cool itself.
Are you again going to deny empirical evidence and claim the sun cannot drive our oceans to 80C and beyond in the absence of atmospheric cooling?
Stephen Wilde.
It may be difficult to comprehend the ‘first cycle’ of convection when the ‘process’ is ‘on going’. Perhaps an approach towards its ‘diurnal cycle’ may be better received.
I think I understand why you’ve taken the ‘cycle’ from ‘no cycle to cyclic’, but this seems confusing. Surely, an approach that explains that a ‘mass’ that ‘absorbs energy’, then ‘transports that energy’ ‘elsewhere’, is ‘important’, but ‘indefinite’! FWIW, I don’t think you’ve emphasised the ‘inertial impact’ that the ‘absorbent mass’ has on the ‘radiative product’.
My apologies, but where radiative energy is ‘stored’ within the structure of ‘mass’, the ‘radiative energy’ is rendered (for the most part) ‘inert’! There will be many that dispute this property of ‘energy/mass’ relationship, but I believe it will stand (Einstein first proposed this).
In short. Energy absorbed by mass displays the same ‘time frame’ as ‘the mass’. Thus, ‘energy’ is ‘constrained’ by the ‘local mass’ (sorry, this is a bit ‘off thread’).
Most pertinent to this thread, the ‘convection cycle’ is ‘on going’ and doesn’t seem to have a ‘start point’. Perhaps it would be better to think about ‘ongoing forcings’ that provide ‘future scenarios’?
This is ‘chaos’!
Best regards, Ray.
The start point for the convective cycle is the initial lifting of gases off the surface.
First, they rise as a result of a temperature increase and then they start to circulate.
The first circulation converts KE to PE for a reduction in the initial surface warming but once the circulation returns to the ground the net thermal effect of the circulation is zero which leaves the surface warmer than before the atmosphere lifted off.
Kristian says: March 21, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Ben Wouters says, March 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm:
“Assuming an airless “moonlike” earth with average surface temperature due solar ~197K, adding an earth like atmosphere (NO oceans) would probably increase the surface temperature a bit.”
Why just ‘a bit’? I’m pretty sure the mean temperatures would slowly, but steadily rise, in the end by many tens of degrees.
We arrived at the current situation by cooling down from substantially higher temperatures.
Presently the sun warms the surface layer, and it loses energy through the atmosphere to space.
I’m pretty confident that when the oceans cool further, the atmosphere can’t prevent that.
Earth has seen ice ages (and perhaps even snowball earth situations) before.
Question is then at what temperature WILL we reach equilibrium.
Imo it is substantially below our current temperatures, perhaps around the 200K mark.
Trick says: March 22, 2014 at 4:48 am
No tricks except in game of hockey, fundamentals do show radiative gases cannot warm the planet, they use up no fuel, only the sun SW warms the planet.
I’m not sure anymore who said what, but the sun SW warming the planet is a misunderstanding imo.
Over 50% of solar energy reaching the surface is IR:
” In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth’s surface is around 52 or 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 43 or 42 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 5 or 3 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Funny thing is that looking at the solar spectra at the TOA and at the surface you can see the absorption of solar by H2O, but also CO2.
Is CO2 heated by solar during the day???
Trick says: March 22, 2014 at 2:45 am
Climate is the Tmean 288K, EEH at ~5km radiating 255K to satellites & of course can substitute radiation for mass in this since:
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
The EEH is pretty useless imo. Trenberth shows an atmospheric window were ~40 W/m^2 is radiating from the surface to space directly.
To balance this at twice the EEH also 40 W/m^2 has to radiate to space.
What at ~10km high is radiating 40 W/m^2?
Where is the other 160 W/m^2 coming from?
In the end the earth loses ~240 W/m^2 to space, wherever this radiation originates.
Comparing the 240 W/m^2 to blackbody spectra gives the 255K as match.
All these poor molecules radiating to space together LOOK like a blackbody radiating with a temperature of 255K.
Ben Wouters says, March 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm:
Ben, five words for you: Atmospheric weight on the surface.
You can’t put a massive atmosphere on top of a solar heated surface and NOT get substantial warming. This is the universal effect of insulating layers on their core body.
“You can’t put a massive atmosphere on top of a solar heated surface and NOT get substantial warming”
Quite so.
The energy required gets to all mass in the atmosphere via conduction.
Once engaged in holding the mass off the surface via convection that energy is no longer available for radiation to space.
If it could leak out in the form of radiation then the atmosphere would collapse.
Radiation within an atmosphere is simply a by product of non radiative processes.
The radiative fluxes within an atmosphere always net out to zero and so can neither warm nor cool the surface.
The slope of the adiabatic lapse rate describes all the locations where UWIR and DWIR net out to zero.
There is as much atmosphere with dominant DWIR as there is with dominant UWIR so they net out to zero.
If any imbalances arise then convection changes to restore balance.
Konrad 6:01am: “Excuse me? Just which of my empirical experiments does not demonstrate to an actual physical process in our oceans or atmosphere?”
None of them deny EEH physics – they all operate according text book physics which is well understood except by Konrad-only interpretations – simply asserts text book must then be wrong. It is necessary for Konrad to invent Konrad-only science interpretations from testing. This in order to support Konrad view.
After reading Bohren 2006, it then becomes necessary to write assertion Bohren is wrong. Konrad-only view is that the earth system acts like a convection constrained solar pond to increase surface temperature higher than 1st law, Planck radiation, measured emissivities show with unconstrained convection.
“Trick, the problem here is that no matter how good your calculations are, they show a radiative atmosphere slowing the cooling rate of the oceans.”
Yep because of mantra: “All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
“This cannot possibly be correct.” Only from wrongly interpreted empirical tests by Konrad-only in order to support his view.
“Empirical experiment shows that radiative cooling alone is not enough to stop the sun driving the oceans to 80C and beyond.” As in Konrad linked solar ponds with constrained convection, not in the earth system with free convection.
“Are you again going to deny empirical evidence and claim the sun cannot drive our oceans to 80C and beyond in the absence of atmospheric cooling?”
Yep, deny this Konrad-only interpretation. Go with text book fundamental based science interpretations. The L&O surface cools system radiating to space directly due to transparent atm. with unconstrained convection coming to 255K, EEH 0 agl equilibrium with net-of-albedo sun.
Kristian says: March 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Ben, five words for you: Atmospheric weight on the surface
Sure. Simple question:
Given the temperature of the deep oceans just below the thermocline is ~275K, and the average surface temperature is ~290K.
How much of this 15K higher temperature do you assign to the sun and how much to the atmosphere?
Another question:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm
Looking at figure 6.7, how do you explain the cooling of the upper ~200m when the sun goes south again if the atmosphere has a substantial influence on this 15K warming. The atmosphere does not move north and south with the seasons afaik.
Stephen 2:24pm: “Radiation within an atmosphere is simply a by product of non radiative processes.”
Bzzzt. Stephen hits rock bottom. Able to write out the 1st law but writing this hooey is why Stephen will never win the debate until does some basic physics reading and discovers the fundamentals of Planck radiation, you know – the one with 3 fundamental constants of nature in it.
“All matter – gaseous, liquid, or solid – at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times…there is no hedging here: all means all. No exceptions. Never. Even at absolute zero?…absolute zero is unattainable…”
The Bohren 2006 cite is my suggestion but I know even if studies the pre-req.s, Stephen still won’t get it, be then forced to say Dr. Bohren is wrong in order to support Stephen’s view, and join Konrad-only with Stephen-only interpretations of nature.
******
Ben 12:40pm: All these poor molecules radiating to space together LOOK like a blackbody radiating with a temperature of 255K.
Yeah to CERES. Since atm. lapse at ~5km is ~255K the EEH is just an effective height for all radiation received at CERES orbit radiometers from whatever altitude, not an actual height. The EEH serves to explain the satellites view vs. thermometer view from text book physics of atm. opacity.
The EEH doesn’t exist in Konrad-only science; I forget if it exists in Stephen-only science. EEH is well covered in text books and well understood by those who have the pre-req.s, there is no science mystery about it unless EEH doesn’t support a view. Then EEH becomes very mysterious indeed.
Kristian says: March 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm
With regard to the “massive atmosphere”.
The weight of the atmosphere at sea level is equal to just ~ 10 m of water.
(average ocean depth ~5000 m)
It’s heat capacity is the same as that of ~3 m of water.
(upper 200 m of the ocean is heated by the sun)
The atmosphere is just a flimsy layer around a massive planet, and not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
That we live, breathe, fly and do whatever in it makes it seem very important though.
Ben Wouters says:
March 22, 2014 at 12:40 pm
“In the end the earth loses ~240 W/m^2 to space, wherever this radiation originates.
Comparing the 240 W/m^2 to blackbody spectra gives the 255K as match.
All these poor molecules radiating to space together LOOK like a blackbody radiating with a temperature of 255K”
—————————————
Ben,
and this is indeed the problem with EEH. Firstly satellites are finding a problem resolving TOA balance in the first place, with errors around 5 w/m2. Secondly, and most importantly, they cannot determine the true height of emission.
I believe it would be very instructive to fly down looking and up looking LWIR sensors on multiple aircraft flying simultaneously through the same area, but at different altitudes, and repeat the experiment for different cloud conditions.
Currently there are too many assumptions. Looking at up-welling frequencies via satellite and determining emission height from EEH assumptions and atmospheric window assumptions is not the answer. Empirical data is required.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“Radiation within an atmosphere is simply a by product of non radiative processes.”
————————————————–
Stephen,
this is not wholly correct.
What would be correct is to say well over 50% of radiation emitted from the atmosphere was from energy acquired by surface conduction and evaporation.
Trick says:
March 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm
————————————–
“ according text book physics”
“ simply asserts text book must then be wrong”
“ Go with text book fundamental based science interpretations”
You are pitting text books against empirical evidence? This is laughable! Go and look at your text book list Trick. What text book written before 1990 claims the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR? Where are the empirical experiments backing such recent claims? There are none are there?
When I previously challenged you to provide an empirical experiment showing DWLWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool, you were unable to find one. If I challenge you to provide an empirical experiment showing water without atmospheric cooling, without atmospheric DWLWIR and illuminated by solar radiation in a diurnal cycle freezing you couldn’t do it, you would just run back to your post 1990s textbooks.
While the fact that you have no empirical experiments to challenge mine is telling you nothing, it speaks volumes to others.
“Konrad to invent”
“Konrad-only science interpretations”
“Konrad-only view”
“ Konrad-only interpretation”
This is just sad Trick. No matter how much you repeat it, the physics I am showing through empirical experiment is supported by literally thousands of engineers and manufactures around the world using science spanning hundreds of years, whereas the claim you support that the oceans would have Tmean of -18C in the absence of DWLWIR has no supporting empirical evidence what so ever. (No, it’s no use offering examples of where S-B is successfully applied if it does not relate to SW/UV into deep water)
Have another look at this simple experiment Trick –
That little toy will eliminate all conductive and evaporative cooling of a water sample as well as eliminating almost all DWLWIR. The sample is heated by intermittent SW at depth and can only cool by outgoing LWIR from its surface. The water can be driven to 80C by intermittent SW. But the question you never asked is “where are the dimensions”?
Guess what Trick, I can make the water freeze! If I make the matt black target plate very thin (no thermal inertia) and make the water sample the same diameter but only 1mm deep, then on the simulated diurnal cycle the water will freeze during the “night”.
And how do I make the water permanently freeze? Simple, keep the sample at only 1mm thick and illuminate only with a constant 240 w/m2 SW source.
You won’t get that answer from S-B calcs alone, therefore A.N.Whitehead’s comment –
“There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”
– is entirely applicable here. Your figure of -18C is out by ~98C.
The bottom line is this – there is no empirical evidence to support the climastrology claim of -18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR, but there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the claim of +80C in the absence of atmospheric cooling.
PS. Did I mention hundreds of years? An interesting historical note concerns ice manufacture in the desert. In ancient times ice was manufactured in the desert via insulation and radiative cooling. Large mud brick walls with returns were built to keep an area behind them in permanent shadow. Very shallow ceramic trays were positioned in the shadow and filled with water. During the day the ice makers covered the trays with layers of palm fronds to insulate from the desert air. During the night the fronds were removed allowing radiative cooling. But if the trays aren’t shallow enough, then conduction from air and ground means it doesn’t work.
Konrad says: March 22, 2014 at 5:19 am
“Back then it was simple, evaporation cooled the oceans and radiative gases cooled the atmosphere.”
I didn’t see it as that simple Konrad. I think there’d ‘always’ been problems with ‘ocean albedo’.
‘Insolation’ (INcomming SOLar radiATION) is attenuated by Earth’s atmosphere, which affects both land and ocean surfaces respectively. At the surface, land is either a ‘reflector’ or an ‘absorber’ of selective wave lengths present in insolation, but ocean surface doesn’t follow the same ‘albedo model’ for land surface.
Whereas land surface is warmed by insolation and conductively (to a lesser degree, radiatively) generates convection by passing warmth to the atmosphere directly above, ocean surface doesn’t!
Ocean surface, in most locations, habitually displays a surface temperature that is “‘lower’ than the ‘atmosphere directly above'” (due to the ‘Clausius Clapyron relationship’, a ‘water wet surface’ always displays a lower temperature than a ‘dry surface’, this is proportionate to the ‘vapour pressure’ of the ‘wetting agent’ in the local atmosphere). Thus, ocean surface ‘can’t’ cool by ‘convection’. However, ocean surface ‘does’ cool by ‘evaporation’.
Now let’s think about the ‘ocean surface area’ in comparison to the ‘land surface area’. IMHO the oceanic regions ‘dominate’ the land regions, hence, most ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Long-wave Radiation) is likely to emerge/originate from ocean surface, rather than land surface. So, how would this ‘biasing effect’ alter the ‘EEH’ (Effective Emission Height/altitude)?
The EEH is obscured where ‘water vapour’ (WV) is condensed WRT Earth’s atmosphere. WV condenses where local conditions permit and this makes ‘latency’ the hardest energy to compute/follow. WV enjoys one of the most ‘potent’ hidden thermal signatures in Earth’s natural physics and when it gives up its energy it’s ~at the ‘Planck constant temp.’ for the ‘surrounding atmosphere’. This makes it difficult to identify.
I’ll not get into more detail just now. What are your thoughts?
Best regards, Ray.
Ray,
I did respond, just lost in moderation somewhere ;(
Konrad 12:39am: “You are pitting text books against empirical evidence?”
Not at all. This is Konrad’s mistake, use the text books to understand your experiments.
“What text book written before 1990 claims the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR?” I dunno fill me in. Remember I once looked up only to find your claim was not in the particular text book.
“Where are the empirical experiments backing such recent claims?” The experiments backing the claims started with Carnot’s paper in 1824. 1st, 2nd law, Planck radiation, Tyndall emissivity so forth.
“When I previously challenged you to provide an empirical experiment showing DWLWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool, you were unable to find one.”
Happened in my tea kettle once again this morning, the DWLWIR slowed its cooling.
“If I challenge you to provide an empirical experiment showing water without atmospheric cooling, without atmospheric DWLWIR and illuminated by solar radiation in a diurnal cycle freezing you couldn’t do it.”
I’ll just set up 1st law: Solar net of albedo – (UWIR-LWIR) using ocean water at T less than freezing, free to convect, conduct – more of the salt water will freeze with LWIR=0 by 1st law. Pointless.
“While the fact that you have no empirical experiments to challenge mine…the physics I am showing through empirical experiment is supported by literally thousands of engineers and manufactures around the world using science spanning hundreds of year”
Concur. All have Sadie Carnot’s experiments, Fourier’s experiments, Clausius’ experiments, Maxwell’s experiments, Tyndall’s experiments, Planck’s experiments, Gibbs et. al. & all in their own words. The text books and papers never forget.
“..whereas the claim you support that the oceans would have Tmean of -18C in the absence of DWLWIR has no supporting empirical evidence what so ever”
See just, oh, about all the experiments above, be sure to capture original authors words* or you could be misled. I need use only 1st law, Planck radiation, measured emissivity from those empirical experiments in a simple basic calc. eqn. 1.72.
“Have another look at this simple experiment Trick -“
Nice picture of a simulated solar pond contraption constraining convection, I bet you can raise the water temperature above 255K in there. If you work at it, apply 1st law to a control volume around the water accounting for energy in – energy out at steady state, Planck radiation, known emissivity, you will be able to analyze the Tmean water temperature. Even make it freeze under the right energy in – energy out conditions! I offered to help analyze once, you turned me down.
What are the transmission wavelengths in microns of translucent #4 low density polyethylene anyway? And it is intermittently not intermitently.
Whitehead was talking about prolonged math calc.s whatever that is, you won’t need it, just simple basic math will do fine to reasonable close answer. I recommend Homer Simpson quotes.
“Your figure of -18C is out by ~98C.” 98C for solar ponds which have constrained convection, not in the free convection world of -18C. Grant you theoretical -18C is a bit rounded off. Your solar pond goes to 98C very nicely. Can use solar pond to drive machinery, some do.
“…there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the claim of +80C in the absence of atmospheric cooling.” Including the presence of constrained convection which you seem to forget I’ve told you many times before as the internet never forgets.
“…ice was manufactured in the desert…” Yes it gets cold in the deserts at times. They are dry due to be being in regions of descending air on the lee side of mountain ranges as in Atacama and Owens Valley. And in areas of descending natural circulation as in Australia.
Konrad-only experiment interpretation doesn’t kill me, only makes me stronger.
*NB1: Proof = Newton’s Law of Cooling was not annunciated by Newton in his April 1701 paper. Subsequent authors not looking up original would be misled. See a parallel?
Posted on behalf of Konrad, who is having wordpress connection issues.
Ray,
basically what I am looking at is the issue that the tropical oceans lose around 90% of their energy via evaporation to the atmosphere. I take a quick guess at how hot they would have to get to lose this much energy via radiation alone, then run a quick experiment to check. And the numbers don’t look good at ~80C. Essentially the claim of an ocean equilibrium temp. of -18C in the absence of DWLWIR cannot possibly be correct. (see my comment and experiment details above for how to get water to match S-B prediction).
Could the oceans still be evaporatively cooled by a non-radiative atmosphere (imagine WV was not able to radiate IR)? My answer is no, because then the atmosphere would have no way to cool. (you may have noted on this thread Trick has tried every possible exit on this one.)
But WV is a radiative gas, so how can radiating from an EEH where the gas is cold beat radiating from a hot ocean surface? My answer is that EEH or ERL is a mathematical fiction that assumes radiating from a single “shell”. While WV is only around 1% of the atmosphere, this represents vaporising around 100mm of the entire oceans surface. These molecules at higher altitude are now radiating in “3D” as they are a gas, not a shell. The radiating surface has now been dramatically
increased. (orders of magnitude?)
The next issue is this –
“..when [WV] gives up its energy it’s ~at the ‘Planck constant temp.’ for the ‘surrounding atmosphere’.”
– This is assumption is fraught with problems, many of them related to EEH or ERL assumptions. As warm moist air-masses rise they are always radiating more strongly than the temperature altitude they are rising through. Ie: they are hotter than the surrounding air (hence rising). As they rise the “heat pulse” during cloud formation due to the release of latent heat also needs to be considered. At this moment in their assent moist air-masses become far hotter than the air they are rising through.
The assumption that WV is radiating only at it’s temperature altitude cannot hold for our dynamic atmosphere. And using “averages” always seems to lead to disaster in these matters 😉
I believe the experiment using aircraft I suggested to Ben in a comment above would be of great help in resolving these matters. I think Rog may have had some interesting aircraft data of this kind at one time.
PS. You posted a link to an atmospheric circulation paper above. I gave it a quick look, but even though I did not find a publication date, I could tell it’s one of those post 1990 papers. How? Something is missing. Radiative subsidence of air-masses or indeed any discussion of radiative cooling mechanisms for the atmosphere or their role in circulation don’t rate a mention. Always a red flag in my book. NASA holds that around ~90% of all energy absorbed by the planet is being lost via radiation from the atmosphere. Traditionally that was supposed to cause buoyancy loss and subsidence. Not any more! You know it’s climate “science” when… 😉
Regards,
Konrad.
Trick says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:05 pm
———————————-
“text books… modern texts…Plank….1st.law…2nd. Law….thermo grand masters….Konrad-only….Tyndall..blah, blah blah.”
Trick, none of it matters, because you have no empirical evidence to support your claims.
It is just no good citing the discoverers of basic scientific principles. The issue here, no matter how you try to evade it, is that these principles have been mis-applied by climastrologists. It’s no good citing Tyndall, Planck, Fourier, Clausius or Maxwell. None of these real scientists ever claimed that the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR or that DWLWIR slowed the cooling rate of liquid water. Only climastrologists claim that.
You have no empirical evidence at all to support the claim that incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Reality doesn’t care what your maths says. I can show through empirical experiment that LWIR can slow the cooling rate of almost any material, just not water that is free to evaporatively cool. It’s been three years, if you had a shred of empirical evidence* you would have presented it by now. Instead all you have is “the maths says it must… the maths says it must”. Where is your actual evidence? Where is your repeatable empirical experiment?
You have no empirical evidence at all to support the claim that the oceans would be at -18C in the absence of DWLWIR. None what so ever. As I have shown the experiment can easily be constructed to prove or disprove this. Why have climastrologists never done this? Because they know the answer, without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR the oceans would almost boil.
Trick, just think this through. 90% of all energy lost by the tropical oceans is via evaporation. How hot would our oceans need to get to lose this via radiation alone?
Your maths has been proved to be in error by over 90K for the Luna regolith via empirical evidence from the Diviner mission and the recent CE-1 Chinese mission. I claim empirical experiment shows a similar 98K error for Earth’s oceans. You cannot possibly use the same failed maths to refute this!
*Whatever you do, don’t come back with that Marriott (of SKS secret forum shame) ocean study. I have already found out what was done and it verges on fraud. (Although something good did come out of replicating the angle of incidence “cheat”, I found high IR reflectance from water and near surface heating from low incidence SW scatter)
Konrad 12:41am: “It is just no good citing the discoverers of basic scientific principles….It’s no good citing Tyndall, Planck, Fourier, Clausius or Maxwell.”
So I’m supposed to believe Konrad-only misunderstood tests and theory? No, going with the grand masters. Understand the testing fundamentals then. Konrad – If you put as much effort in understanding these guys, you would be much better off in any science debate.
“I can show through empirical experiment that LWIR can slow the cooling rate of almost any material, just not water that is free to evaporatively cool.”
You’ve confirmed how a solar pond works, nothing more.
“Where is your actual evidence? Where is your repeatable empirical experiment?”
My tea kettle every morning. It always shows DWLWIR slows the cooling of the tap water inside, never observed it fail.
“As I have shown the experiment can easily be constructed to prove or disprove this.”
Konrad contraption shows how solar ponds work not the oceans or even my tea kettle where conduction/convection is unconstrained unlike in his contraption with constrained conduction/convection. I notice Konrad avoids answering what he must know to understand his contraption: “What are the transmission wavelengths in microns of translucent #4 low density polyethylene anyway?”
“Your maths has been proved to be in error by over 90K for the Luna regolith via empirical evidence from the Diviner mission and the recent CE-1 Chinese mission. I claim empirical experiment shows a similar 98K error for Earth’s oceans. You cannot possibly use the same failed maths to refute this!”
Pay more attention Konrad: upthread this was discussed with tb. The maths work on earth; compute out to Tmean 288K for earth just using 1st law, Planck radiation, measured emissivity, basic formula 1.72 in Bohren 2006 p.33. have confidence to then “…frame testable hypothesis, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously.”
No one has used the maths to correctly compute the Moon’s total surface Tmean so far as I know. Fill me in if missed. The Diviner Mission papers don’t contain a work showing entire surface Tmean, they do show some equator Tmean work and some Apollo data models (Vasavada et. al. 2012).
http://diviner.ucla.edu/publications.shtml
The global L&O earth surface emissivity is ~1.0, rounded; lunar regolith surface emissivity being ~0.5-0.75 due the fine powder optics is an unresolved issue as far as I can tell. Here developed with theory and testing Apollo lunar soil samples:
http://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/126/umi-uta-1407.pdf?sequence=1
Understanding this would be better work for experiments & not trying to disprove the grand masters (which you don’t).
Trick says:
March 24, 2014 at 2:27 am
———————————–
Trick, your responses read like the script of “The Climate Shop” Monty Python sketch.
“Do you have any empirical evidence at all?” he asked, expecting the answer no…
Just two little experiments like this is all you need –
Can incident LWIR heat or slow the cooling rate of water?
Will water freeze without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR?
Billions spent on the climate hoax and you don’t have even that. Just two simple empirical experiments to back your foundation claims. Why don’t you have repeatable experiments for others to confirm your claims? If the physics is as basic as your claim it should be no problem at all now should it? Criticising and sneering at my repeatable experiments in no way excuses the lack of your own.
But we all know why climastrologists avoid any such empirical experiments don’t we? It’s to keep the hoax alive. After all –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
Trick,
I am in awe of your stamina on this thread and Konrad’s too. I have good news for you!
You said:
“No one has used the maths to correctly compute the Moon’s total surface Tmean so far as I know. Fill me in if missed. The Diviner Mission papers don’t contain a work showing entire surface Tmean, they do show some equator Tmean work and some Apollo data models (Vasavada et. al. 2012).”
Thanks to Vavasada, Tim Channon, Ned Nikolov and several others a consensus has been reached (where have I heard that before?).
The “Consensus” estimate for the Moon’s Tmean is 197.3 Kelvin. Tim Channon’s model that you refer to shows that the average temperature is almost independent of rotation so it appears that the Tmean for an airless Earth is also 197.3 Kelvin rather than 255 Kelvin as assumed by “Climate Scientists”.
Konrad 3:16am – Did you notice the grand master theory predicts the grand experiment Tmean 288K? Feynman is proper happy camper. Read his stuff first, it is great. And what’s wrong with my poor little tea kettle experiment? Just I don’t have a pretty picture? Is that it? And:
“What are the transmission wavelengths in microns of translucent #4 low density polyethylene anyway?”
gc 3:23am: tb posted a link upthread that shows the 197K is computed with lunar regolith emissivity 0.955. Can you confirm?
If so, the paper I just posted shows there is an issue with that number – tests of actual lunar soil returned from Apollo missions show lunar surface emissivity ranges 0.5-0.75. tb wrote updated work is on the way but no ETA. The reason being much of the soil is such a fine powder the particle diam. is on the order of wavelength of light band of interest so proper physics needs to take that into account.
Trick says:
March 24, 2014 at 3:24 am
———————————–
“And what’s wrong with my poor little tea kettle experiment? Just I don’t have a pretty picture? Is that it?”
Pretty picture? Well the fact that you have no photos like this –
– is actually painting a very ugly picture.
Note the experiments I post use two very different strengths of incident LWIR over insulated water samples as comparison. If you think your kettle example shows anything at all about incident LWIR on water you are sadly deluded. Where’s your controlled sources of LWIR onto the surface of the water? Nowhere, that’s where. If you actually had an experiment like mine, you would post it.
“What are the transmission wavelengths in microns of translucent #4 low density polyethylene anyway?”
Dr. Spencer uses a figure of 90% transmission of LWIR for 0.5mil LDPE. His experiments work, so do mine. (mine are just far better than Dr. Spencers. Spray paint onto EPS foam? Please!). Secondly you will note that for the relevant experiment the film is resting in complete contact with the water. Go on, use your IR thermometer. Check emission for water with and without the film. Oh, that’s right, you don’t need an IR thermometer because you have some garbage maths from a textbook written by someone who doesn’t even believe it.
As I told you before, nit-picking about my experiments is pointless when you have none of your own. “but the maths says…” is just tragic.
You have no actual empirical evidence that DWLWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
You have no empirical evidence that our oceans would be at -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR.
The foundation claims of your religion have no basis in empirical evidence. Why do you refuse to provide empirical evidence to back these claims?
Trick,
Roger that!
I used a lunar regolith emissivity of 0.95 and a Bond Albedo of 0.118. If I got the emissivity wrong it will have no noticeable effect on daytime temperatures but night time temperatures will be higher.
The lunar regolith is curious stuff given that it has essentially the same specific heat as basalt (840 J/kg/K) but a thermal conductivity in the range 0.001 to 0.008 W/m/K compared to basalt’s 1.70 W/m/K.
gallopingcamel says:
March 24, 2014 at 5:14 am
“The lunar regolith is curious stuff given that it has essentially the same specific heat as basalt (840 J/kg/K) but a thermal conductivity in the range 0.001 to 0.008 W/m/K compared to basalt’s 1.70 W/m/K.”
——————————————–
Thermal conductivity? The forbidden science! You challenge the gospel of radiative only calculation! This blasphemy could lead to the heresy of surface translucency. Repent. Repent now sinner!
Trick: tests of actual lunar soil returned from Apollo missions show lunar surface emissivity ranges 0.5-0.75.
I somehow doubt these tests were carried out in vacuo with the electrostatic charge separation the dust particles under the Moon’s 1/6 earth gravity experience. The humidity of the sample under earth conditions would affect the result massively too.
Now can we please move discussion of lunar surface temps to the diviner threads as requested.
Trick, a quick question – do you own a non-contact IR thermometer?
Konrad 4:59am – You present nothing new. The EEH of earth is ~5km, EEH of moon ~0.0km.
“Dr. Spencer uses a figure of 90% transmission of LWIR for 0.5mil LDPE. His experiments work, so do mine.” 90% of what? UV,IR,SW,LW, visible? What? You should know this dead nuts to interpret your experimental work.
All experiments “work”, the challenge is understand why. Your experiments prove constrained convection solar ponds can exist; say little to nothing about unconstrained convection.
“You have no actual empirical evidence that DWLWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You have no empirical evidence that our oceans would be at -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR.”
I have basic fundamental theory agreeing with grand experiment of the L&O&atm.&solar system and understand enthalpy & entropy fundamentals why they show DWLWIR slows the cooling of the global oceans.
“..you have some garbage maths from a textbook written by someone who doesn’t even believe it.”
The math agrees with experiment and I understand why; garbage is Konrad-only word. The author shows eqn. 1.72 is just fine given the basic application.
gc 5:14am – I’m curious why you write daytime temp.s would have no effect 0.955 emissivity vs. 0.5-0.75 but like I wrote to tb upthread, I’m not really interested going beyond the 3-4 hours of work I did to understand Diviner results. Note: with only 0.5-0.75 emissivity physics, any balance model would have to take into account absorption to interior as well as reflection way different than S-B model.
******
tb 7:32am – The tests the lunar regolith emissivity paper ref.s are those of NASA, digging into them would be necessary. I only respond to Diviner stuff here relevant to EEH, not interested spend time in raising the issue further other than look forward to more work appearing takes into account proper lunar surface emissivity physics.
Trick,
Black body radiation from a surface at 95 Kelvin amounts to 4.62 W/m2 so changing the emissivity from 0.95 to 0.50 is equivalent to a “Forcing” of 2.08 W/m2. (I am beginning to sound like Kevin Trenberth!)
Assuming A = 0.118 (another highly questionable assumption) the insolation at noon on the Moon’s equator is 1360.8 * (1 – 0.118) – 0.95 * 4.62 = 1,197.8 W/m2 which corresponds to an equilibrium temperature of 381.2 K.
Recalculate for 1,197.8 + 2.08 = 1,199.9 W/m^2 and you get 381.4 K
Changing the emissivity has a much greater effect on the night time temperature. At 0.95 emissivity the minimum temperature is 94.8 K, rising to 108.6 with the emissivity set at 0.50. That calculation was a more difficult so I had to use QuickField.
What I like about the FEA approach to the lunar regolith is that even a simple single layer model yields results that closely correspond to observations. Given that the thermal properties of the regolith vary with depth a multi-layer model should improve precision.
Trick,
Thankfully I decided to check my calculation above using QuickField. It turns out you are right, emissivity strongly affects Tmax!
Here is what happened when I changed the emissivity alone:
Tmax = 385.9 K, Tmin = 94.8 K, with emissivity set at 0.95
Tmax = 452.9 K, Tmin = 108.4 K, with emissivity set at 0.50
Changing Albedo will have similar effects. Vavasada’s paper mentions the dependence of Albedo on the angle of incididence (Θ), according to Keihm [1984]:
A(Θ) = Ao +a(Θ/45)^3 + b(Θ/90)^8
Where a = 0.045 and b = 0.14
Adding such dependencies to FEA models is easy to do. I am starting to think it might be worthwhile to build a multi-layer QuickField model using the latest measurements of Albedo, emissivity and thermal properties of the regolith that vary with depth.
Well the climatologits can’t have it both ways. If Trick were to be right about lunar soil having emissivity of 0.5, then the BB calculation to get the 255K for Earth is out of the window, even allowing for 70% of Earth being covered by water with emissivity of 0.977.
gc 4:46pm: Yes, that’s what I find playing with some basic numbers, can’t make the simple equation that works fine on earth at L&O surface epsilon 1.0, rounded, go even in the right direction for lunar regolith properties. There is more to be discovered for the lunar surface balance. S-B can’t be applied to much of the powder on the surface due diam. of particles equal to wavelength.
I would point out also Hermite crater should be at 2.8K if simple balance worked on regolith, yet Hermite per Diviner is 25K. Too balmy, ha.
******
tb 4:52pm – It’s not my work shows the 0.5-0.75 lunar regolith emissivity – the 2006 paper I linked does the work from a specialist in the field of dielectric surface properties. You are going to draw me into the Diviner thread(s) yet. Maybe later.
I would say the search for truth must go into what a lunar surface control volume balance looks like thru the depth of the regolith to bedrock. That implies more simultaneous linear eqn.s and more unknowns as gc implies with FEA. It is to yet be discovered if simplifications can bring the no. of independent eqn.s equal the number of unknowns for a lunar solution Tmean from calculations that roughly matches the temporal and spatial Diviner data which also remains to be done total surface similar CERES over say 4 and 10 years.
tallbloke, Konrad –
You might try a simple instructive exercise:
Pull radiosonde data for desert locations (eg via http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html).
Plot specific humidity (usually MIXR) vs pressure (proxy for air mass). Do this for a daily sequence.
Then decide where (and when) the EEH is for our major GHG in our simplest air.
I doubt if anyone can usefully average it.
nb Beware limited RH precision on low values.
tallbloke says:
March 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm
————————————
This is precisely the reason for doing empirical experiments. One wrong assumption in the maths and suddenly you have Tmean for Luna regolith 90C out. Empirical experiment would have revealed the vacuum insulation between grains and possibly even the electrostatic charge issue.
And the moon is easy compared to the surface of earth. Earth has dry soils, wet soils, dry vegetation, wet vegetation, and deep, deep oceans.
The idea that these radiation only calculations can work for Earth when they do not even work for the Moon is quite simply an “extraordinary claim” requiring extraordinary empirical evidence, and climastrologists have none to offer.
I show by empirical evidence the vast difference between the response of transparent materials especially liquid water to different frequencies. The maths of the climastrologits shows no difference between temperature response for the same w/m2 SW and IR absorption for water. The maths is clearly in complete error for 71% of our planet’s surface.
Trick says:
March 24, 2014 at 1:06 pm
————————————
“The EEH of earth is ~5km, EEH of moon ~0.0km.”
No, that won’t work either. There is no such thing as EEH or ERL there are a mathematical fiction. The atmosphere does not radiate from a “shell”, “height” or “layer”.
“90% of what? UV,IR,SW,LW, visible? What? You should know this dead nuts to interpret your experimental work.”
Again the pointless nit-picking. The physics I am demonstrating is so simple and basic that the vast difference between LWIR transmission of 0.5 micron LDPE and 2mm air cooled glass is entirely adequate. Again what is the point of nit picking my experiments when you and the climastrologists have none of your own? Criticising my experimental work in no way justifies you not presenting your own and trying to run back to your maths.
“All experiments “work”, the challenge is understand why. Your experiments prove constrained convection solar ponds can exist; say little to nothing about unconstrained convection.”
No, convection is constrained in solar ponds, not in my liquid experiments. There is no “out” for you there.
“I have basic fundamental theory agreeing with grand experiment of the L&O&atm.&solar system and understand enthalpy & entropy fundamentals why they show DWLWIR slows the cooling of the global oceans.”
Translation – “I have no empirical evidence what so ever”.
“The math agrees with experiment and I understand why; garbage is Konrad-only word. The author shows eqn. 1.72 is just fine given the basic application.”
I am still correct, the maths is garbage. What is the basic application? A gas atmosphere above a SW illuminated surface (always ask, what does the maths DO?). Bohren presents a two shell mathematical model. In a gas atmosphere his non-existent shell would be conductively coupled with the surface and the non-radiative energy transport (well over 50%) from the surface to the non-existent shell would have to be solved simultaneously. His maths doesn’t do that (and NO, you cannot solve separately for conduction) Equation 1.72 is not “just fine”. Anyone can see that. Any attempt to apply a two shell radiative model to a moving gas atmosphere where non-radiative transports dominate is pseudo science, just as Sir George Simpson warned in 1938 (note – not “Konrad-only”, many far better people than I have called “garbage” on your hoax, many before I was born).
The whole of the global warming hoax depends on two basic claims –
1. The oceans would be at -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR
2. DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that can evaporatively cool as it does other materials
-and climastrologists have no empirical evidence to back either of these claims. Given the billions spent so far on this AGW inanity they have no excuses for not conducting these simple physics experiments.
And your excuse? “But the maths says..”
You have no empirical evidence Trick, therefore you have no case.
Konrad 10:55pm: “The idea that these radiation only calculations can work for Earth…”
They do. Experiment and theory work fine. Calculate Earth Tmean 288K from Bohren 2006 eqn. 1.72 with measured inputs. The interesting EEH physics debate is really Tmean the moon surface. Be the first with spatial and temporal measured Tmean. Several years observed data is now out there. Then be first to correctly explain the moon EEH experimental results. Academic challenges remain.
Konrad 11:59am: “Again what is the point of nit picking my experiments…” Nothing new Konrad. The point is to find out if your claims can be run down; turns out they do not survive critical, informed inspection.
”No, convection is constrained in solar ponds, not in my liquid experiments. There is no “out” for you there.” The #4 low density polyethylene constrains convection; not present in ocean.
“Bohren presents a two shell mathematical model.”
No, Konrad confuses a shell and flat surface. S-B not applicable to shell surface radiating to itself. Bohren develops from 1st principles & presents two uniform slabs, infinite in lateral extent.
“…would have to be solved simultaneously.” Simplifications like epsilon rounded to 1.0 reduce to 1 eqn. 1 unknown. Solvable; and results compare favorably to experiment.
“The whole of the global warming hoax depends on two basic claims – 1. 2.”
1. is a result not a claim. When run down proves fundamentally ok under hydrostatic condition, 2. is well known from fundamentals entropy and enthalpy.
“You have no empirical evidence Trick, therefore you have no case.”
Earth Tmean theory agrees with empirical experiment makes a very good case when run down unlike Konrad’s; just like Feynman’s theory agreed with his experiments. If not, he improved the theory until theory explained experiment as does for Earth.
Peter Shaw says:
March 24, 2014 at 8:22 pm
———————————–
Peter,
This is a fair suggestion. Up thread I proposed an experiment to Ben, in which a flight of aircraft in a vertically separated formation fly simultaneously through the same air space, using IR sensors to simultaneously record IR from all directions.
Strangely empirical data of this kind does not appear to exist. The Idea of EEH or ERL is in effect a mathematical fiction to create a “shell” to be used in mathematical models. There is no real supporting empirical evidence.
What climastrologists do is take outgoing LWIR measurement by satellite, assume a surface emissivity, isolate non “surface” frequencies, assume an IR opacity for the atmosphere to calculate an assumed an EEH and calculate temperature at that height as if those non “surface” frequencies are being radiated from that height. Then assumed lapse rate is used to back calculate “surface” temperature from that altitude.
What is clearly lacking is any real empirical measure of IR at multiple altitudes in differing atmospheric conditions.
Some of the biggest problems with the EEH assumption are as follows –
1. (and this is a big one) the 1% water vapour in our atmosphere is the equivalent of vaporising the top 100mm of all the worlds oceans into the air. This gas is the most important radiative gas in our atmosphere. Because of its low concentration, it is not radiating from a 2D shell or layer but in 3D from ground up, with a steadily increasing amount of radiation making it directly to space as altitude increases. Assuming an EEH as a shell at a certain point (usually claimed as ~5km) clearly cannot work as vapour as 1% of the gas it is mixed into will present a far grater radiating area than a 2D shell.
2. Air masses are in constant vertical motion. Heated air masses are hotter than the temperature of the air they are rising through. Also moist rising air masses experience a “heat pulse” as they rise through condensation altitude. There is no set height of emission and using averages and assumptions is always the downfall when dealing with complex systems.
3. Water vapour is not well mixed in our atmosphere as evidenced by cloud formation. For a gas radiating in 3D this means the EEH assumption must also fail.
Your suggestion of radiosonde balloons could work, but it needs the addition of IR sensors. The problem as always with climate science is insufficient supporting empirical data.
tallbloke says: March 23, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Thanks for relaying this post TB, but my response to it is now ‘in moderation’!
If ‘I’m’ ‘loosing it’, you are too!!! 😦
Ray.
[Reply] Sorry about that. Not sure why your comment got canned by wordpress. I’m ‘timeshifted’ it to bring it to the top of the thread comments. -tb
Trick says:
March 25, 2014 at 12:42 am
“Konrad 10:55pm: “The idea that these radiation only calculations can work for Earth…”
They do. Experiment and theory work fine. Calculate Earth Tmean 288K from Bohren 2006 eqn. 1.72 with measured inputs.”
Clearly they don’t. 102 climate models based on your maths have failed, and they failed for exactly the reasons Sir George Simpson said any such attempt would fail.
“The point is to find out if your claims can be run down; turns out they do not survive critical, informed inspection.”
My results indicate liquid water being driven to 80C by solar SW in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. Your maths says -18C. Where is you empirical proof of your claims?
“The #4 low density polyethylene constrains convection; not present in ocean.”
Internal convection is not constrained in my liquid experiments. Convective cooling to the atmosphere is irrelevant as it was nowhere in your maths that indicated -18C in the absence of DWLWIR, nor is evaporative cooling. (the oceans were meant to be ice remember?)
“No, Konrad confuses a shell and flat surface. S-B not applicable to shell surface radiating to itself. Bohren develops from 1st principles & presents two uniform slabs, infinite in lateral extent.”
Shell or slab doesn’t matter, the point was that conductive coupling needs to be simultaneously solved. And your maths doesn’t do that.
“…would have to be solved simultaneously.” Simplifications like epsilon rounded to 1.0 reduce to 1 eqn. 1 unknown. Solvable; and results compare favorably to experiment.
Hand waving, yet again. Simultaneous conduction and convection were not solved. “and results compare favourably to experiment” what experiment? Please show it. (no, Earth’s ave surface temp matching the maths is not an experiment. The maths was set to the observed temps.)
“Earth Tmean theory agrees with empirical experiment”
Just what experiment is that Trick? We all know what was done. The EEH game was played until a match to surface temp could be set by back calculating from make believe EEH using assumed lapse rate. This was done with radiation only math with non-radiative transports parametrised as constant so simple IR opacity changes could be used to show increased surface temps. It’s pseudo science.
Here’s a simple experiment for you Trick, let’s see your Science Skillz. (Just for you, this one has all convection, conduction and evaporation unconstrained.)
Take 2 matt black 1 litre water tubs. Insulate base and sides.
Position a probe thermometer 3mm below the water line of each
Fill tub A with clear water
Fill tub B with water made opaque with strong black dye
Expose each to equal solar radiation.
Both samples have the same SW absorption, the same IR emissivity, the same evaporative cooling and the same amount of incident solar radiation. After 1 hour of full sun is the answer –
A. Tubs A & B read the same temperature
B. Tub A reads hotter than tub B
C. Tub B reads hotter than A
When you know the answer to this, you will understand the fist-biting mistake climastrologists made by treating the oceans as a “blackbody” 😉
(and if you buy an IR thermometer, I can show you why.)
Trick says: March 25, 2014 at 12:42 am
“Konrad 10:55pm: “The idea that these radiation only calculations can work for Earth…”
They do.”
No they don’t/can’t!
“Experiment and theory work fine.”
That depends upon ‘which theory’ you apply to experimental results.
“Academic challenges remain.”
They certainly do.
“Earth Tmean theory agrees with empirical experiment makes a very good case when run down unlike Konrad’s; just like Feynman’s theory agreed with his experiments. If not, he improved the theory until theory explained experiment as does for Earth.”
‘Latency’ isn’t included with “Tmean”! So, “just like Feynman’s theory agreed with his experiments”, you’ll need to ‘improve the theory’ until ‘theory’ explains the ‘experiment’, as does Earth’s reaction!
Best regards, Ray.
tallbloke says: March 23, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Thanks for the relayed message TB.
Konrad says: March 23, 2014 at 5:22 am
Apologies for the slow response, I’ve given this quite some thought.
“basically what I am looking at is the issue that the tropical oceans lose around 90% of their energy via evaporation to the atmosphere. I take a quick guess at how hot they would have to get to lose this much energy via radiation alone, then run a quick experiment to check. And the numbers don’t look good at ~80C. Essentially the claim of an ocean equilibrium temp. of -18C in the absence of DWLWIR cannot possibly be correct. (see my comment and experiment details above for how to get water to match S-B prediction).”
I’ll not investigate your experiment as I don’t see how SB emissions can be applied when ocean surface is ‘cooler’ than the air above it (barring local Vulcanism activity). I’d go as far as to say that, surely, the atmosphere warms ocean surface at the ‘contact boundary’?
Following that statement, I’ll also have to ‘presume’, that “the tropical oceans lose around 100% of their energy via evaporation to the atmosphere.”, or I wouldn’t have made the first statement about SB emissions.
“Could the oceans still be evaporatively cooled by a non-radiative atmosphere (imagine WV was not able to radiate IR)? My answer is no, because then the atmosphere would have no way to cool. (you may have noted on this thread Trick has tried every possible exit on this one.)”
I’m afraid my answer is, yes! Evaporation doesn’t involve the ‘radiative mechanism’. If the atmosphere can’t loose enough heat to condense the evaporated ‘product’, the ‘product’ will be lost from the atmosphere leading to the total loss of the evaporating fluid.
“But WV is a radiative gas, so how can radiating from an EEH where the gas is cold beat radiating from a hot ocean surface? My answer is that EEH or ERL is a mathematical fiction that assumes radiating from a single “shell”. While WV is only around 1% of the atmosphere, this represents vaporising around 100mm of the entire oceans surface. These molecules at higher altitude are now radiating in “3D” as they are a gas, not a shell. The radiating surface has now been dramatically increased. (orders of magnitude?)”
I concur that the ‘EEH’ (Effective Emission Hight/altitude) is a hypothetical altitude that alludes to ‘Radiative Theory’, but I’m unsure as to its validity for a ‘shell on shell’ mathematical construct. Evapotranspiration and the Hydrological Cycle renders this altitude meaningless below the tropopause.
“The next issue is this –
“..when [WV] gives up its energy it’s ~at the ‘Planck constant temp.’ for the ‘surrounding atmosphere’.”
– This is assumption is fraught with problems, many of them related to EEH or ERL assumptions. As warm moist air-masses rise they are always radiating more strongly than the temperature altitude they are rising through. Ie: they are hotter than the surrounding air (hence rising). As they rise the “heat pulse” during cloud formation due to the release of latent heat also needs to be considered. At this moment in their assent moist air-masses become far hotter than the air they are rising through.”
There are more issues for uncertainty here. ‘WV’ (Water Vapour), as a molar quantity, possesses ~3/5 the density property of the main atmospheric gasses. This is the generator of oceanic ‘thermals’. Temperature difference can ‘not’ lead to ‘convection’ above ocean surface because ‘the water is cooler than the air’. However, ‘density difference’ does. IIRC, I think ~27C is the SST that leads to a perpetual evaporation of sea surface into the atmosphere (causative of hurricanes/cyclones).
Back to your ‘next issue’. I doubt that they’re ‘hotter’, only ‘lighter’ in density, but seem to rise to greater altitudes than expected (the ‘latent’ property of WV doesn’t exhibit a thermal quality until a ‘phase change’ to ‘water’ occurs [when the ‘phase change’ occurs, volume is lost, energy is released and density is ~increasing/unchanging?]).
WV is on a ‘death mission’ to form a ‘shroud of cloud’ that alters Earth’s ‘albedo’ to a value where the oceans can continue to exist on Earth’s surface. I don’t see where ‘radiative theory’ comes into this. 😉
“The assumption that WV is radiating only at it’s temperature altitude cannot hold for our dynamic atmosphere. And using “averages” always seems to lead to disaster in these matters 😉 ”
I concur, the ‘latency’ property of WV needs to be better addressed.
“I believe the experiment using aircraft I suggested to Ben in a comment above would be of great help in resolving these matters. I think Rog may have had some interesting aircraft data of this kind at one time.”
No comment, this thread is too long to hunt for ‘other posts’. Sorry. 😦
“PS. You posted a link to an atmospheric circulation paper above. I gave it a quick look, but even though I did not find a publication date, I could tell it’s one of those post 1990 papers. How? Something is missing. Radiative subsidence of air-masses or indeed any discussion of radiative cooling mechanisms for the atmosphere or their role in circulation don’t rate a mention. Always a red flag in my book. NASA holds that around ~90% of all energy absorbed by the planet is being lost via radiation from the atmosphere. Traditionally that was supposed to cause buoyancy loss and subsidence. Not any more! You know it’s climate “science” when… 😉 ”
Do you mean ‘this paper’;
Click to access L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS83NjAyNw==.pdf
Investigation points towards a 1969 publication date as far as I can tell. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad: ” Up thread I proposed an experiment to Ben, in which a flight of aircraft in a vertically separated formation fly simultaneously through the same air space, using IR sensors to simultaneously record IR from all directions. Strangely empirical data of this kind does not appear to exist. The Idea of EEH or ERL is in effect a mathematical fiction to create a “shell” to be used in mathematical models. There is no real supporting empirical evidence”
Something similar has been tried. The scientists got the USAF to fly above and below the cloud deck simultaneously taking IR measurements. What they found was that cloud radiative theory was off by around 25W/m^2. Needless to say the results got buried. Read this paper:
Click to access cess.pdf
Konrad 3:51am: Demonstrates much confusion and confusion is growing driven to suit his view being challenged.
I’m writing about the most basic Chapter 1 text book model eqn. 1.72 and its judicious use and Konrad confuses it with results of GCMs “102 climate models” when it is well known the basic model agrees with experiment. It is well known the “102 climate models” do not agree with experiment. This is an obvious confusion introduced by Konrad to suit a view.
“My results indicate liquid water being driven to 80C by solar SW in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR.” Konrad’s confusion here is that he doesn’t mention the obvious constrained convection by #4 LDPE sheet raising the water temperature like a solar pond unlike the unconstrained convection over the real oceans. In desperate confusion Konrad resorts to internal circulation argument which doesn’t affect the external balance.
“Shell or slab doesn’t matter.” Konrad is majorly confused where S-B can be applied (slab not radiating to itself) and S-B cannot be applied (shell radiating to itself). “It” does matter for physics, does not matter in Konrad-only physics.
“what experiment? Please show it.The maths was set to the observed temps.”
The only one of interest, the global surface control volume in which we live and breathe where the maths were not set they are from measured inputs (solar net of albedo SW, all-sky emissivity looking up, L&O surface looking down for terrestrial LW).
“We all know what was done. The EEH game was played until a match to surface temp could be set by back calculating from make believe EEH using assumed lapse rate.This was done with radiation only math…”
Much more major Konrad confusion, the EEH is not calculated from lapse but 1st principles, the game was not played – the input data is as measured. The EEH is at a height well known Temp. Konrad well knows only radiation gets to space to cool system but tries confuse readers moving between control volumes trying to imply that conductive, convective processes must also get to space.
Konrad’s simple experiment analysis:
1. Set up an arbitrary control volume of interest around each water reservoir in steady state. Account for conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer across the control volume, employ enthalpy and entropy considerations.
2. Employ 1st law energy in – energy out = m*Cp*DT/dt = 0 in steady state. m. mass of water in CV, Cp water.
3. Use local Planck’s radiation law, Fourier’s conduction law, convection for fluid increased in energy from below, measure relevant emissivities find energy in and energy out.
4. Emply S-B to convert radiative energy flux as necessary to find Tmean in balance.
5. For verification, take enough thermometer readings in the water to find Tmean with CIs reduced to reasonable. (Hint: this will require more than 1 thermometer as Konrad contraptions show.)
tb 7:08am: I read thru the link. The 1st sentence after 1.2 “implications”, cites 3 ref.s to find the GCMs of the time global net surface insolation off by 20-42W/m^2 and that GCMs are generally tuned. I submit the “generally tuned” implication is the bigger real root cause of GCM issues as the insolation parameter or cloud parameter could be fixed once discovered. The tuning drifts from 1st principles as time goes forward and the natural chaos is no longer modeled correctly. If the GCMs can be made from 1st principles 100% they should do better until chaos differences drives the CIs unreasonable.
Control system theory of aircraft is able reduce the chaos to limits and succeed with measured closed loop stable feedback unlike the open loop earth climate system. Meaning if GCMs get updated with current conditions from 1st principles, they should do better predicting the near future; some evidence of this in weather forecasts extended from 3 days to 5 days to 10 days.
Suricat,
“I’m afraid my answer is, yes! Evaporation doesn’t involve the ‘radiative mechanism’. If the atmosphere can’t loose enough heat to condense the evaporated ‘product’, the ‘product’ will be lost from the atmosphere leading to the total loss of the evaporating fluid.”
Turns out the losses are limited by our magnetic field.
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4614/new-study-proves-the-magnetosphere-protects-earth
or am I misunderstanding your point??
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2014 at 7:08 am
————————————
Thanks for the link to Collins&Cess’ work. While this primarily deals with empirical measurement of SW absorption of clouds rather than LWIR emission at varying altitudes it does serve to highlight the critical importance of empirical observation and experiment.
The difference between climate “science” assumption and empirical reality that Collins shows is huge. As he points out –
“The decrease would presumably reduce the convectively available potential energy and would therefore tend to decelerate the walker circulation and hydrological cycle.”
The reason such work has to be buried is the same as for Makarieva 2010. It is highlighting critical errors that would require rewrite of all GCMs.
There is one area that climastrologists never want looked at and that is the importance of energy gain and loss at differing altitudes. This is what drives vertical circulation in the atmosphere and thereby generates the observed lapse rate below the tropopause. Change the radiative properties of the atmosphere and you change the speed of vertical non-radiative transport from the surface. One of the big “tricks” (actually lies) in climate science is holding such circulation to be a constant in the simple early models (the “basic physics” of the “settled science”).
Post 1990 radiative/convective models became the vogue, but this was just an attempt to achieve the same trick but sound more “sciencey” while doing it. And the trick?
Radiative gases do cause low altitude warming.
Radiative gases do cause high altitude cooling.
This drives vertical circulation through buoyancy imbalance.
What happens when you hold vertical circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration? Low altitude warming!
Dr. Cess’ empirical results show a significant error in assumptions about SW absorption by clouds with huge implications for vertical circulation and non-radiative transport. Are the errors for LWIR emission likely to be any less? No. They are going to be worse. Far, far worse.
kuhnkat says:
March 25, 2014 at 9:58 pm
“Turns out the losses are limited by our magnetic field”
——————————————————————-
Not when the atmosphere has no radiative cooling ability 😉
There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases to cool them. Now if only climastrologists could understand the reason why…
No, wait. “Never try to explain something to someone whose job depends on them not understanding it”.
Konrad: When are you going to write up your acrylic block experiment with piccies for a post?
We need to show the insipid WUWTopians what real science looks like.
suricat says:
March 25, 2014 at 7:04 am
“Apologies for the slow response, I’ve given this quite some thought.”
Thank you for taking the time to respond and for Tallbloke sorting the wordpress issues.
“I’ll not investigate your experiment as I don’t see how SB emissions can be applied when ocean surface is ‘cooler’ than the air above it (barring local Vulcanism activity).”
I concur – S-B is not applicable when non-radiative transports dominate. The experiment was simply a demo of S-B failing totally for water.
“I’d go as far as to say that, surely, the atmosphere warms ocean surface at the ‘contact boundary’?”
Not at an average wind speed of Beaufort scale 4. (5.5 – 7.9 m/s). Try heating a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer. Little response pointing it at the surface. Now point it at the side of the tub. Bingo! Trying to conductively heat (or heat with LWIR) through the skin evaporation layer of liquid water is a dead end.
“I’m afraid my answer is, yes! Evaporation doesn’t involve the ‘radiative mechanism’. If the atmosphere can’t loose enough heat to condense the evaporated ‘product’, the ‘product’ will be lost from the atmosphere leading to the total loss of the evaporating fluid.”
I’m afraid I need clarification. Lost from the atmosphere to where? Empirical evidence from other planets and moons in our solar system indicates atmospheres cannot be retained in the absence of radiative gases.
I concur that the ‘EEH’ (Effective Emission Hight/altitude) is a hypothetical altitude that alludes to ‘Radiative Theory’, but I’m unsure as to its validity for a ‘shell on shell’ mathematical construct. Evapotranspiration and the Hydrological Cycle renders this altitude meaningless below the tropopause.
I concur. Make believe EEH is set at 5km, well inside the troposphere.
“There are more issues for uncertainty here. ‘WV’ (Water Vapour), as a molar quantity, possesses ~3/5 the density property of the main atmospheric gasses. This is the generator of oceanic ‘thermals’. Temperature difference can ‘not’ lead to ‘convection’ above ocean surface because ‘the water is cooler than the air’. However, ‘density difference’ does. IIRC, I think ~27C is the SST that leads to a perpetual evaporation of sea surface into the atmosphere (causative of hurricanes/cyclones).”
Yes it is true that a saturated air mass is more buoyant than a dry air mass at the same temperature. However due to diurnal cycle almost all rising air masses are hotter than the air they are rising through. Disappointingly there are few radiosonde balloon transects that follow moist air masses through their full cycle, however “smart balloon” technology holds promise –
http://www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/smartballoon/smartballoon.htm
“WV is on a ‘death mission’ to form a ‘shroud of cloud’ that alters Earth’s ‘albedo’ to a value where the oceans can continue to exist on Earth’s surface. I don’t see where ‘radiative theory’ comes into this. ;)”
Willis at WUWT and others maintain that there is a “cloud thermostat”. I tend to agree, but hold that its power is greater than they calculate. (ther croud at WUWT still believe LWIR slows the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool)
“Do you mean ‘this [1969] paper’;
I stand corrected on this 😉
It did read as post 1990, as the term “radiative subsidence” was absent. A common feature of what Trick likes to call “modern texts”.
Regards,
Konrad.
Conrad, the more the heated atmosphere acts like a plasma the more effective the restraint of the magnetic field will be.
By the way, the way, I understood suricat to mean the actual particles, not the energy. Of course, in an atmosphere with non-ghg’s that would cover it.
Also by the way, how hot does it have to get before those non-ghg’s actually start radiating at a noticeable rate.
Don’t mud wrestle pigs. You only get muddy and the pigs enjoy it.
Conrad,
“Empirical evidence from other planets and moons in our solar system indicates atmospheres cannot be retained in the absence of radiative gases.”
So a minimal range of examples allows you to extrapolate with absolute certainty. How many of those examples has a strong magnetic field?? OOPS, you are reduced to a set of examples even smaller. In fact, how many examples of atmospheres with no GHG’s are there?
Mars has a radiative atmosphere and is losing it. Earth was thought to be losing and now is thought to be losing very slowly. Venus is almost all radiative and is losing much faster than earth or mars.
Yuh think there just MAY be other issues involved in your hypothesis such as atmospheric loss is the standard in spite of the makeup unless there are mechanisms to replace the losses?
tallbloke says:
March 25, 2014 at 11:18 pm
————————————–
WUWT? Science? They can’t handle the science! (the reign of Willis persists).
I have an out of state project for the next few days. I hope to do a write up after that, including the “black water” problem Trick was utterly incapable of solving. I am trying hard not to end up in Seoul or Shanghai but needs must as the devil drives….
kuhnkat says:
March 26, 2014 at 1:14 am
————————————-
Do have a care –
I am well aware that Mars should have a greater atmosphere than it does, were it not for it’s patchy, weak, decaying magnetic field.
You ask –
“In fact, how many examples of atmospheres with no GHG’s are there?”
And the answer is none. None what so ever. According to climastrologists they should exist, but none have ever been sighted in the wild…funny thing that huh?
I do understand your quite valid question of comparison of radiative to “non- radiative” atmospheres. There is a little problem with this. No non-radiative atmospheres have never been observed, not solar nor extra-solar. But then real physics, as opposed to climastrology, says such an atmosphere can’t exist.
KK: there just MAY be other issues involved in your hypothesis such as atmospheric loss is the standard
The Sun has been getting stronger for billions of years.
Konrad says: March 25, 2014 at 11:59 pm
I concur – S-B is not applicable when non-radiative transports dominate. The experiment was simply a demo of S-B failing totally for water.
“I’d go as far as to say that, surely, the atmosphere warms ocean surface at the ‘contact boundary’?”
Not at an average wind speed of Beaufort scale 4. (5.5 – 7.9 m/s).
I was also interested in the daily variation of the surface temperatures of the oceans.
The number is surprisingly low, around 1K only.
This paper has lots of relevant info:
Click to access 63050721.pdf
Wind speed is a deciding factor it seems.
tallbloke says: March 25, 2014 at 7:08 am
Interesting link TB, I’ll look through it when I can. Don’t forget that droplet activity at cloud base and cloud top are usually in opposition and ‘swap activities’ diurnally.
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says:
March 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm
————————————-
So, still no empirical experiments to justify the claim of oceans at -18C in the absence of radiative gases?
Couldn’t work out the “black water experiment”? Given that the only answer required was either “=”, “>” or “” or “<” signs. (I am not saying your procedure is wrong, just that to give the required answer it isn’t required. Further you will note that your procedure is exactly what climastrologists didn’t do when they claimed -18C for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR)
Are you avoiding giving an answer because you can't understand the physics? Or is it that you do understand, but don't like the answer?
Konrad 12:09am: “I am not saying your procedure is wrong, just that to give the required answer it isn’t required.”
My procedure stands then. That’s the only way short of guessing. Here are some things physics can say about your tubs of 1litre water and some things I can guess.
“Take 2 matt black 1 litre water tubs. Insulate base and sides.Position a probe thermometer 3mm below the water line of each. Fill tub A with clear water. Fill tub B with water made opaque with strong black dye. Expose each to equal solar radiation.”
1). Don’t know the starting water T or water depth but it must be 3mm or greater given the thermometer location. Assume starting from tap water.
2) Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, Vol. II, Academic Press Query et. al. 1991.Table1 Water (H2O), pp. 1059–77, shows the absorption length of visible light above wavelength 0.8 micron is practically nil in the shallow clear water tub (it takes depth 1m to even get readable absorption length off the zero line). For visible light in blue-green the absorption length peaks ~55m.
3) The particles of black dye tub will scatter some of this light. In visible wavelengths Konrad did the test, tub liquid will become black b/c Konrad added enough dye. The color in longer wavelengths of both tubs will be infrared. Snow, pure is white in visible, black in infrared.
To check this, take your clear water tub and add just a few drops of black dye and set both tubs out in the sunshine. The dilute (optically thin) suspension has a bluish cast, whereas the more concentrated (optically thick) suspension is black. And yet the particles in both pans are the same. This is yet another example in which single-scattering arguments applied to a multiple-scattering medium lead to erroneous conclusions like I so often see in cloud discussions. The individual particles in dye are sufficiently small that they scatter more at the short-wavelength end of the visible spectrum. This is why in both tubs the color will be infrared in the long wavelength end. In an optically thick medium of many such particles the cumulative effect of multiple scattering is to wash out this spectral dependence
4) Konrad says 1litre of water in both but really means only the clear one as the other has large amount of black dye also presumably displacing the water to an unknown extent. The mass of water and Cp of the black tub are unknown so its time to equilibrium is not calculable.
5) I would expect starting at time=0, the black tub to increase T a bit slower if the light scattered out by the dye is measurable and the thermometer calibrated fine enough. Whether they stabilize after 1 hour, I dunno, but general experience implies probably the answer is yes at assumed depth. Since the color of both in IR is the same, I choose nearly same equilibrium T with slightly less in black dye tub b/c I don’t really have a feel for the depth or scattering effects w/o doing the full test procedure. It could be the scattering effects at short end have measurable effect as the dye particles provide shade for the bottom.
I expect Konrad will now take me to school on scattering effects as he knows the depth & amount of dye among other things and may have already done the test. If so, I expect Konrad to reason his answer in standard text book physics by cites I can go read not Konrad-only physics.
******
Now Konrad, here’s one for you. I observe fog lamps on cars seem to be marketed as yellow ones can throw more light down the foggy night road. Is this good physics or just good marketing?
kuhnkat says: March 25, 2014 at 9:58 pm
“or am I misunderstanding your point??”
Perhaps this is so. A ‘CME’ (Coronal Mass Ejection) is the type of ‘beast’ that is as it sounds. Mass ‘particles’ are ejected from Sol during this type of event and, consisting of ionised plasma, generate a current surge in Sol’s average ‘ionic emission’ (vacuum tube [electrical valve] tec.). An electrical current surge generates a magnetic anomaly at the locale of the current surge and its this magnetic anomaly which, in turn, influences movement of ‘ionised gasses’ (charged mass) that exist in the upper reaches of planetary atmospheres (magnets ‘move’ electrons in a CRT, they ‘move’ protons as well [in the opposite direction]).
If this sounds a bit like ‘vacuum plating’, it is and although Earth’s strong magnetic field provides some biasing, the ‘surge field’ often does take some mass from Earth’s outer atmosphere with many other magnetic disturbances during a ‘severe’ CME event.
No. This isn’t what I mean and I often find the subject of ‘radiation per se’ obfuscatory and inadequately defined. Whenever I mention ‘insolation’ I intend/expect this to be understood as ‘EM radiation’ (‘Electro Magnetic radiation’, which travels at the speed of light in a vacuum), but the ‘label’ of ‘radiation’ is so diverse as to include ‘particle radiation’ (atomic and sub atomic particles that display a ‘mass’ quality) that can only come ‘close’ to ‘light speed’ in a particle accelerator or as a ‘CRP’ (Cosmic Ray Particle).
Your ‘feed back’ would be good, as to why you considered a particulate intervention involving ‘HE Physics’ (High Energy Physics) and not the ‘run of the mill’ ‘photonic’ (for want of a better word) energy that I tried to imply. This may help to ‘clarify’ any future posts that I may make. My apologies for any misleading interpretation. 😦
In a effort to ‘clarify’. EM radiation in the IR wave length plays little, or no, part in ocean surface warming!
‘Contact conduction’ of the ocean surface with the atmosphere delivers warming to a few microns depth of ocean surface. This ‘warming’ can only progress to a depth that local ‘oceanic turbulent mixing’ permits (and that isn’t more than ~10 cm in a ‘best case scenario’ IMHO). The current ocean surface turbulence determines the ratio for this ‘mixing’.
‘DWLR’ can’t penetrate more than ~10 cm depth of ocean surface. ‘This’ warming can, again, only progress to a depth that local ‘oceanic turbulent mixing’ permits! Do you see a ‘simally’ here? I hope you do.
An ‘heuristic’ approach to ‘ocean turbulence’ would prove more influence on ‘surface mixing’ and provide more definition on ‘contact conduction’ against ‘DWIR’ influences. However, these ‘products’ don’t/can’t amount to ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) because the ‘thermal energy’ is ‘applied’ at the ‘top of the fluid’.
Fluid dynamics dictate that an ‘identical fluid’ at a ‘higher temperature’ exhibits ‘less density’ than an ‘identical fluid’ at a ‘lower temperature’. Thus, absorbed energy ‘from above’, in a gravity controlled environment, requires a ‘mixing’ element for ‘downward’ energy transport (usually results in a ‘temperature inversion’), so ‘thermals’ just don’t usually happen.
On Earth, the ‘oceans’ are warmed by ‘SW insolation’ (to quantify this to some degree, SW Gamma, hard X-ray, X-ray, soft X-ray, UVc, ~UVb are ‘attenuated’ before their arrival at Earth’s surface). The question is, to what degree.
I’m not sure that I’ve properly addressed your inquiry kuhnkat. RSVP. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad says: March 25, 2014 at 11:59 pm
“Not at an average wind speed of Beaufort scale 4. (5.5 – 7.9 m/s). Try heating a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer. Little response pointing it at the surface. Now point it at the side of the tub. Bingo! Trying to conductively heat (or heat with LWIR) through the skin evaporation layer of liquid water is a dead end.”
Konrad, You’re preaching to the ‘already’ converted! A ‘hair drier’ warming the surface of a ‘water resevoir’ ‘can’t warm the resevoir’! It can only ‘increase evaporation’ (thermodynamics and ‘the root’ of ‘oceanic convection’!
More intricate stuff. Your ‘analogy’ predisposes the ‘conversion of water to vapour’ at ocean surface altitudes, but these alter with ‘wind advection’. How would you describe an ‘advective anomaly’ with a varying ‘wind advection’ to ocean surface?
FWIW, I think that a ‘greater wind’ generates lower ocean surface temps. (more ‘mixing’).
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: March 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
“On Earth, the ‘oceans’ are warmed by ‘SW insolation’ (to quantify this to some degree, SW Gamma, hard X-ray, X-ray, soft X-ray, UVc, ~UVb are ‘attenuated’ before their arrival at Earth’s surface). The question is, to what degree.”
I assume SW doesn’t include the IR above 700 nm?
Yet according to this source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
over 50% of solar energy at the surface is in IR (> 700 nm)
Looking at this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
We can see the effect of albedo (mostly in visible light) and the absorption bands for mostly H2O.
BUT also in the CO2 bands solar radiation is missing at the surface.
Does this not indicate that the little CO2 we have in the atmosphere is at least during daytime heated by the sun?
Trick says:
March 27, 2014 at 3:05 am
———————————
Trick,
we are not talking of fractions of a degree here. The result is very definite and easy to achieve.
This is not about the shape of the tub or scattering or dye interfering with evaporation.
This is about the depth of SW/UV absorption. One tub is absorbing at depth and one at the surface, and this is what causes the temperature differential. Just like the acrylic block experiment. Just like our oceans.
This is how the simple S-B calcs used by climastrologists get the wrong temperature for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR. Essentially they have treated a transparent material as if it were absorbing at its radiating surface at only 240 w/m2. This is a critical error that invalidates every claim about a net radiative GHE on this planet.
Ben Wouters says: March 27, 2014 at 8:26 am
“I assume SW doesn’t include the IR above 700 nm?”
Hi Ben. That’s a ‘tricky’ question. Both ‘blue vis’ and ‘red vis’ spectral ‘end points’ are up for grabs and it all depends on ‘the eye of the observer’. Some individuals are able to see the ‘long end’ of the UV spectrum, and some other individuals are able to see the ‘short end’ of the IR spectrum. Thus, there’s a ‘gap’ where UV and IR are not ‘generally’ considered to be a part of the ‘visible’ spectrum, but because some individuals are able to see/observe these wave lengths, the wave lengths have been ‘labelled’ as ‘unattached’.
“over 50% of solar energy at the surface is in IR (> 700 nm)”
Where does your link disclose this information? Is this an assumption from summing EM energy received at Earth’s surface (I can’t ‘see it’ myself [the ‘bandwidth’ is ‘too narrow’])? If this ‘is’ so, this will be due to the ‘attenuation property’ of Earth’s atmosphere. However, it’s the ‘attenuation property’ of ‘Sea/Ocean/Lake Water’ that determines the ‘depth to extinction’ of any IR EM energy that penetrates Earth’s ocean/water surfaces, and IR just ‘doesn’t’ penetrate deep enough.
“Looking at this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
We can see the effect of albedo (mostly in visible light) and the absorption bands for mostly H2O.
BUT also in the CO2 bands solar radiation is missing at the surface.”
I think I get your point here. A ‘biasing effect’ is caused by ‘radiative atmospheric gasses’ absorbing insolation, against the same ‘gasses’ also absorbing ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Long-wave Radiation). I put the same case for ‘ozone’ a few years ago, but it didn’t get me anywhere. 🙂
You’re probably correct Ben.
“Does this not indicate that the little CO2 we have in the atmosphere is at least during daytime heated by the sun?”
Yes. However, it’s ‘altitude’ is more ‘pertinent’ to ‘atmospheric entropy/enthalpy’ than any of Earth’s ‘surfaces’.
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad says: March 28, 2014 at 2:25 am
“This is a critical error that invalidates every claim about a net radiative GHE on this planet.”
I concur Konrad. ‘Blue vis’ and ‘UVa’ penetrate to a ‘depth to extinction’ of ~1km below ‘clean’ ocean surface (and this ‘includes’ ice), though, impurities included in the ‘depth to extinction’ usually reduce this to ~700m. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Konrad says: March 28, 2014 at 2:25 am
“This is about the depth of SW/UV absorption. One tub is absorbing at depth and one at the surface, and this is what causes the temperature differential. Just like the acrylic block experiment. Just like our oceans. ”
Konrad I think you’re seeing too much in the Effective Temperature (Te).
It is just a back of the envelope calculation to get an initial estimate for the radiative balance temperature of a planet, given its TSI and albedo.
see http://www.principia-scientific.org/moons-hidden-message.html
Our climaclowns seem to have used the figure for earth mindlessly, and calculated their GHE with incredible precision. Pity they forgot to take the fact into consideration that the sun can shine on only halve a planet at any time. For the effect see our moons temperature
Once you know more about a planet (internal heat, atmosphere, emissivity of the surface, rotation speed etc.etc) the whole game changes and the ACTUAL temperature will always be higher than the correctly calculated Te (for earth ~150K),
but we DO need an explanation why the temperature on earth is higher than the ~150K the sun alone can achieve (on an ideal grey body)
suricat says: March 28, 2014 at 3:42 am
Hallo Ray
under Summary in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
” In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth’s surface is around 52 or 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 43 or 42 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 5 or 3 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
These guys seem to know what they are talking about:
http://www.newport.com/Introduction-to-Solar-Radiation/411919/1033/content.aspx
If the H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere are already heated by the high intensity solar radiation, how can these molecules be heated further by the low power radiation from the surface?
So the most prominent greenhouse gas (H2O) actually absorbs SOLAR (not surface) radiation, and re-radiates part of it to space, preventing the earth from getting warmer.
These questions should be answered by a warmist. I doubt they have an answer.
If > 50% of suns energy at the surface is in IR, that explains imo why the SST get so high in no wind conditions. IR hardly penetrates the oceans, and needs waves and turbulence to mix the heated surface water further down.
see http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
page 725 fig. 2
Afaik only 3% of solar energy reaches 100m depth, so the bulk of the solar heating is in the first 100m.
Konrad 2:25am: “This is not about the shape of the tub or scattering…”
Konrad-only science, no cites to basic fundamentals as I show, assertion is so easy. Explaining why the tubs work as they do is beyond Konrad-only grasp of fundamentals. The EEH and “net radiative GHE” physics being much more involved are unexplained in Konrad-only science but explained well with classical physics fundamentals.
******
Ben 12:06pm: “…we DO need an explanation…So the moon behaves reasonably well like a BB”
Your explanation lies in the physics of the EEH. Earth EEH ~5km, moon TBD ~0.0km. Earth satellites measure 255K from EEH, thermometers 288K. Basic surface control volume radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer calculation w/measured input confirms physical understanding the Tmean 288K and the 0.0 atm. emissivity 255K with basic hydrostatic conditions in place given my cite upthread.
You forget the moon surface emissivity is not the BB you assume, regolith powder dielectric surface emission is more like 0.5-0.75 given my cite upthread. What happens to the other 0.25 to 0.5 absorbed/scattered/reflected LWIR energy? Need moon TBD complex simultaneous eqn. solution with regolith powder control volume solved temporal and spatial over surface given Clementine moon SW albedo ~0.11.
Trick says: March 28, 2014 at 2:21 pm
I don’t understand the fascination with EEH. Earth loses ~240 W/m^2 to space, the sun delivers ~240 W/m^2 to system earth => ~ energy balance.
Incoming solar is thermalized in all kind of places, from the ozone layer to the first 100m of our oceans. All these places radiate, evaporate, conduct etc., attributing the total ~240 W/m^2 that earth loses to space.
With an average surface temperature of ~290K and no atmosphere earth would lose ~400 W/m^2 to space. Due to our atmosphere the loss is only ~240 W/m^2.
The only question to answer is: how did the surface get to 290K in the first place?
I do have an embarrassingly simple answer to that question.
Got linked here from elsewhere and saw that quote, funny as I’ve made this point some time ago:
I actually worked out that at the wavelengths where the Earth/Sun emission diagrams show the surface emissions peaking you are still getting something like 5x to 10x as much IR directly from the Sun.
As the various newport solar simulation values provided in the earlier link showed values for 250 to 2500 nm and 250 to 1100 nm with a difference indicating that the 1100 to 2500 nm range for sunlight at the surface still consists of 150 to 300 W/m^2 IR yet we’re supposed to believe the atmosphere is more effective at warming the surface than the giant ball of skyfire?
Trick says:
March 28, 2014 at 2:21 pm
———————————
Trick,
in the comment where I introduce the “black water” experiment I indicated –
“and if you buy an IR thermometer, I can show you why.”
Yet you thought this was an appropriate response ?-
“Explaining why the tubs work as they do is beyond Konrad-only grasp of fundamentals”
And this?-
“Konrad-only…. Konrad-only…. Konrad-only…”
Trick, please just give it a rest. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. To others it means beating PHDs in their field, engineering awards and exhibits in technology museums. Your combined ad-hominem/call to authority attack is pointless.
“The EEH and “net radiative GHE” physics [..] explained well with classical physics fundamentals.”
No it is not. You have to eliminate or de-couple conduction, convection, evaporation and material transparency to force radiative only math to “work”.
“satellites measure 255K from EEH”
No they do not. EEH doesn’t exist, it is a mathematical fiction. Satellites are not measuring 255K from an EEH. Satellites have no idea what altitude OLR was emitted from. To claim otherwise is factually incorrect.
There is no way around it. The failed radiative GHE hypothesis shows the atmosphere slowing the cooling rate of the oceans when the reality is that without atmospheric cooling our oceans would hit 80C or beyond. How much more wrong could climastrologists possibly be?
Konrad 2:08am: I observe no new fundamental physics cites to further explain your hypothesis “reality is that without atmospheric cooling our oceans would hit 80C” from your constrained convection test because you have none or you would offer such. The first E in EEH stands for “effective” – try to understand what that usefully means.
“You have to eliminate or de-couple conduction, convection, evaporation and material transparency to force radiative only math to “work”.” No, these independent processes et. al. are superposed for the total system balance in the surface control volume and work fine for basic usefulness. Experiment works out as theory shows.
******
Ben 4:44pm: “I don’t understand the fascination with EEH.”
Physically, the EEH corresponds to the optimal trade-off between high atmosphere density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atmosphere to permit that emitted radiation to escape earth system to space. Fairly simple to folks that have the pre-req.s to understand. What I don’t understand is the consternation some posters experience with EEH – the ones that write: “EEH doesn’t exist.” But there it is, having a view to protect in face of science fundamentals seems to be unending important to some.
Ben Wouters says: March 28, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Hi Ben, I’ll take your last comment first for clarity.
“Afaik only 3% of solar energy reaches 100m depth, so the bulk of the solar heating is in the first 100m.”
I’ll be honest here, the ‘depth to extinction’ isn’t anything like the distance covered by an ‘effective emission depth’. My recollection of a book I read, years ago, doesn’t seem to be supported as an ‘online source’ any more. I can’t link to it, but the data was generated by ‘lab. experiment’ and not ‘in the field’. Thus, it’s ‘hypothetical’.
Nevertheless, ‘lab. experiments’ are subject to a critical discipline that’s hard to establish ‘in the field’ and, usually, provide the ‘first principles’ that we all need to ‘see’ the ‘bigger picture’. However, I am clear in the understanding that the ‘cusp’ between ‘UV’ and ‘blue vis’ spectra has the greatest distance and almost doesn’t interact with water or ice at all.
One thing that is important to realise is that if you ‘double the frequency’ (half the wave length) and maintain the ‘amplitude’, the ‘doubled frequency’ (halved wave length) transports ‘much more energy’ than the ‘original wave form’.
It’s odd that your ‘wiki link’ shows “5 or 3 percent ultraviolet” at Earth’s surface and you understand that “only 3% of solar energy reaches 100m depth”. Is this so ‘odd’ though?
Perhaps not. AFAIK the depths achieved in the spectra I’ve mentioned above are achievable, dependant on the level of particulate inclusion.
I’ll not argue that the main source of energy transfer from Sol is within the first 100m of ocean depth, just that Sol’s ‘insolation’ is ‘evident’ to greater depths of our oceans.
“These guys seem to know what they are talking about:”
With regards to an ‘atmosphere’, yes! They don’t concern themselves with how ocean affects the atmosphere though.
“If > 50% of suns energy at the surface is in IR, that explains imo why the SST get so high in no wind conditions. IR hardly penetrates the oceans, and needs waves and turbulence to mix the heated surface water further down.
see http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
page 725 fig. 2″
That’s more like it Ben. I’ll get back when I’ve got through your link. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says:
March 29, 2014 at 3:04 am
———————————–
“I observe no new fundamental physics cites”
You have been given empirical experiments and real world examples of just how hot solar radiation can drive water in the absence of atmospheric cooling. You have no empirical evidence that without atmospheric cooling and and no DWLWIR that water heated by the sun alone would freeze.
There are plenty of cites from basic solar engineering showing that water can be heated to 100C via flat plate collectors.
“from your constrained convection test”
Complaining that the water heated because convection was constrained doesn’t make sense. Internal fluid convection is not constrained in the liquid tests. And convection to the atmosphere is not relevant. Your “0.0 EEH” maths shows the oceans as ice in the absence of DWLWIR. It is no good complaining that the figure of 80C doesn’t include atmospheric cooling as a non-radiative atmosphere has no way to cool the oceans as it cannot cool itself.
“The first E in EEH stands for “effective” – try to understand what that usefully means.”
It was effective only for creating a mathematical fiction that radiation only calculations could be used to model an atmosphere in which non-radiative energy transports dominate.
“ “You have to eliminate or de-couple conduction, convection, evaporation and material transparency to force radiative only math to “work”.” No, these independent processes et. al. are superposed for the total system balance in the surface control volume and work fine for basic usefulness.”
These are not independent processes! They cannot be “superimposed”. The speed of vertical tropospheric circulation depends on radiative gases. More than half the energy being radiated from the atmosphere was acquired by surface conduction and evaporation not radiation. Because the non-radiative transports in our atmosphere change speed with changing radiative gas concentration these must be solved simultaneously.
“Experiment works out as theory shows”
How can you claim this? Every climate model based on the net radiative GHE hypothesis fails.
“Physically, the EEH corresponds to the optimal trade-off between high atmosphere density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atmosphere to permit that emitted radiation to escape earth system to space.”
“physically”? EEH is a mathematical fiction, it has not been empirically measured. Satellites cannot do this. Water vapour is a gas and it is radiating in 3D with a greater surface area than a fictional layer.
“Fairly simple to folks that have the pre-req.s to understand.”
I would have thought that knowing that transparent materials heated by SW and UV cannot have their equilibrium temperature determined by S-B calcs alone as a simple pre-requisite for determining ocean temperatures…
“What I don’t understand is the consternation some posters experience with EEH – the ones that write: “EEH doesn’t exist.”
EEH doesn’t exist. The atmosphere is exhibiting strong vertical circulation. Water vapour and clouds are not well mixed. IR is being emitted from all altitudes in the troposphere in differing amounts at different times. It is simply untrue to say the atmosphere is radiating 240 w/m2 from a single layer at 5 km. The only reason for the creation of EEH was so the radiative only atmospheric games could be played.
Trick: a concept which relies on an averaged 24hr/day sun to make the inference drawn from it that a ghg-less Earth could not exceed 255K is not a “science fundamental”. It is fundamentally misleading.
Konrad 5:45am: I observe you offer no new fundamental physics cites to further explain your hypothesis. You simply go over the same ground without citation which is why I point out stuff like “EEH doesn’t exist” is only from Konrad. EEH is basic text book stuff.
“Internal fluid convection is not constrained in the liquid tests.” Prove it. Get some more thermometers and prove the water is being increased in temperature from below and not from above by conduction from the #4 LDPE plate that is constraining energy from leaving water control volume by convection thus raising water Tmean as in a solar pond. This is the kind of action you need to debate with & not mere non-cited assertion which won’t work.
******
tb 9:10am: The earth surface atm. control volume analysis global Tmean 255K, rounded, is from measured input data, 1st law, Planck radiation, and basic geometry consistent with 2nd law from the cite I gave up thread for eqn. 1.72 & agrees with satellite data accumulated over 10yr.s within reasonable CIs: “It is just a basic analogue, useful for helping understand some basic physics, possibly to frame testable hypotheses, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously.”
Trick says: March 29, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Using 1364 W/m^2 for TSI and actual albedo the Te for earth:
1364 / 4 *0,70 = 239 W/m^2 => SB 255K
Same calculation for the moon with albedo 0,11
1364 / 4 *0,89 = 303 W/m^2 => SB 270K
With a measured average surface temperature for the moon ~197K
the moon radiates ~ 85 W/m^2 to space on average.
303 -85 = 218 W/m^2 If the difference is due to a low emissivity, where is this 218 W/m^2?
More missing heat? No oceans on the moon to hide the missing heat, only mares 😉
Or perhaps the calculation resulting in a Te of 161K is more realistic?
Ben 3:28pm – You are using input side only, 239-239=0 LTE for earth works. 270-270=0 for moon does not work as the surface emissivity output side is far below 1.0. The basic analogue eqn. for earth eqn. 1.72 Te^ 4 = S/σ(1 − ε/2) is from solving two balance equations. This is demonstrated by Diviner results at equator won’t work on moon as need more simultaneous energy flow eqn.s.
The moon Tmean ~197K total surface is not measured; is calculated with surface regolith powder emissivity set 0.955 which is too high based on 2006 paper cited up thread.
Trick says: March 29, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Afaik the equatorial region of the moon has been measured (~214K ?)
Let’s be generous, and assume the average surface temp of the moon is 220K.
SB says moon is losing 133 W/m^2 on average now.
Only 170 W/m^2 missing heat now. Must be disappearing in the infinite sink below the surface that is inherent to your low emissivity.
I would thionk that the moon should be glowing hot after a couple of billion years absorbing this much energy.
Ben 4:59pm: I would think so too. However this is not the case, as I wrote up thread, the regolith powder emissivity balance below 0.955 is not only conducting laterally & to bedrock (Vasavada Fig. 7), it is reflecting, scattering LW to space & cliffs, and couple molecules of atm. These input/output flux components all need to be put in eqn. form with the respective physics and solved simultaneously. Not going to be easy as earth proved to be for basic analogue.
Trick: “Not going to be easy as earth proved to be”
Lol. Easy to get wrong maybe.
Max™ says: March 29, 2014 at 12:05 am
The point I tried to make with the two solar spectra is that solar IR apparently is intercepted by H2O (and a little by CO2). The whole greenhouse effect is supposedly the IR coming from the surface warming the greenhouse gasses, warming the surface (backradiation), warming the greenhouse gasses, warming the surface some more etc.etc. (von Munchhausen effect?)
If the greenhouse gasses are already heated by the high power sun, how can the low power surface warm them further?
suricat says: March 29, 2014 at 5:12 am
Hallo Ray.
Undoubtedly some solar radiation will reach deeper than 100m (neutrinos blast right through the whole earth I understand 😉
But when 97% (seen this figure before somewhere) of the energy is restricted to the first 100m I feel confident in saying that the sun warms the upper 100m of the oceans.
I’m trying to get the idea across that the sun can barely warm the surface layer some ~15K or so, and that the temperature of the deep oceans must come from somewhere else.
see eg. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm
At the end of the summer the upper 200m is the warmest of the year. With the sun going south, the temperature drops accordingly.
tallbloke says:
March 29, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Trick: “Not going to be easy as earth proved to be”
TB: “Lol. Easy to get wrong maybe.”
————————————————————-
Maybe those 102 climate models are right and it’s just the Earth that’s wrong 😉
Ray & Ben,
you may find the following paper helpful with regard to SW/UV absorption at depth –
Click to access 1663844x.pdf
while this is a biology related paper, the measurements are empirical. Figure 3(d) is particularly interesting showing UV-A still at around 10 w/m2 at 50m. This has importance for solar influence on climate as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles. This is why climastrologists only want to look at the 0.1% variance in TSI so they can dismiss the sun as a significant factor in climate variability.
Trick says:
March 29, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“I observe you offer no new fundamental physics cites to further explain your hypothesis. You simply go over the same ground without citation”
“new fundamental physics cites”?
Firstly nothing new is required. I am simply demonstrating the old pre-climastrology physics.
Secondly you got build instructions for repeatable empirical experiments, cites in textbooks are irrelevant for those.
Thirdly you also got a basic paper on solar ponds with plenty of cites to follow up if you cared. Some of those also cover fresh water convecting solar ponds where evaporation and surface conduction is eliminated just like this experiment –
At small scale convecting solar ponds require overnight tank storage. The cheap solution? Make them deep like our oceans. The primary reason both types of solar pond work is that atmospheric cooling is eliminated. This is exactly what would happen to our oceans in the absence of the cooling provided by a radiately cooled atmosphere. It is simply physically impossible for a non-radiative atmosphere to provide the same cooling as it will have no way of cooling itself.
Need more empirical examples? PV panel researchers are working hard to find new SW transparent materials with high thermal conductivity to reduce the solar thermal gain which occurs with other transparent materials and effects cell efficiency. They are trying to improve atmospheric cooling of transparent energy traps.
“which is why I point out stuff like “EEH doesn’t exist” is only from Konrad. EEH is basic text book
stuff.”
No EEH is not “basic text book” stuff it’s only in those “modern texts” you keep running back to. It’s climastrology-only nonsense that has no supporting empirical evidence.
Trick, by using instantaneous radiative flux calculations (with coupled non-radiative transports not solved simultaneously) climastrologists have ended up making the inane claim that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming, raising them from -18C to 15C. There is no empirical evidence for this. The empirical evidence indicates that the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, reducing the oceans from 80C to 15C.
“This is the kind of action you need to debate with & not mere non-cited assertion which won’t work.”
I’d say empirical evidence is working just fine 😉 Your attempts to counter it have resulted in an AGW believer trying every possible escape attempt from the greatest mistake in the history of science itself and revealing that nothing the climastrologists try can save them now. It truly is a fist-biting mistake too big to be hidden long enough to allow a “sciencey” sounding exit strategy to work.
Konrad 3:43am: “I am simply demonstrating the old pre-climastrology physics”
Now we have old physics from Konrad in order to get around my nothing new from Konrad. Nope won’t work, science improves based on foundations & fundamentals – that’s why they call ’em principles. There is nothing new or old from Konrad here.
“..cites in textbooks are irrelevant…” Only per Konrad who won’t use them to understand & explain his own experiments.
“The primary reason both types of solar pond work is that atmospheric cooling is eliminated.This is exactly what would happen to our oceans….” Solar ponds work by suppressing convective energy transfer just like in Konrad’s experiment and this would exactly NOT happen in the oceans with reduced atm. emissivity as there is no #4 LDPE added to constrain convection.
“..(atm.) will have no way of cooling itself.” Atm. would still be in thermal contact with the surface (which is radiating directly to space) and system arrive at steady state surface equilibrium Tmean=255K with unconstrained convection and unconstrained conduction and a -g/Cp lapse from surface on up.
“…the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming, raising them from -18C to 15C” That’s inane. The sun warms the oceans, the atm. is cooler above surface by approx. -g/Cp lapse.
“I’d say empirical evidence is working just fine.” Concur, the empirical evidence & science principles explain the sun increasing earth surface control volume Tmean from 255K to 288K as the atm. increases in opacity to normal emissivity starting from transparent.
No exit strategy is needed in the basic science as empirical experiment and principles demonstrate; Konrad demonstrates unending discussion simply to support a view.
“No EEH is not “basic text book” stuff it’s only in those “modern texts”…” Ignorance is not a defense in debate or the law, Konrad’s not reading and understanding science principles is all too obvious. Results in Konrad’s ill-conceived and ill-understood constrained convection experiment.
The EEH is well principled and not in contention anywhere in science. Konrad needs dismiss EEH simply to support a view. Won’t work.
Trick says:
March 30, 2014 at 5:11 am
——————————————————-
“science improves based on foundations & fundamentals”
Yep. But climastrology has nothing to do with fundamentals. It is all about the mis-application of simple radiative physics to moving transparent materials in a gravity field where non-conductive transports dominate. I know a great deal of propaganda effort has been put into the “basic physics / settled science” claims, but it is just that, propaganda.
“There is nothing new or old from Konrad here.”
Nothing new, plenty old 😉 When were the first natural solar ponds discovered?
“….who won’t use them to understand & explain his own experiments.”
Trick, you won’t find the answers in a climastrology text book. I have offered to show you what you need to know, but first you need to build either the acrylic block experiment or the “black water” experiment and for goodness sake buy a good IR thermometer!
““The primary reason both types of solar pond work is that atmospheric cooling is eliminated. This is exactly what would happen to our oceans….” Solar ponds work by suppressing convective energy transfer just like in Konrad’s experiment and this would exactly NOT happen in the oceans with reduced atm. emissivity as there is no #4 LDPE added to constrain convection.”
Suppressing convection to where Trick? That’s right the atmosphere. Hence my claim solar ponds work by suppressing atmospheric cooling. Now how on earth could a non-radiative atmosphere provide that cooling to the oceans? How would it cool itself?
Let’s see..
“ Atm. would still be in thermal contact with the surface (which is radiating directly to space) and system arrive at steady state surface equilibrium Tmean=255K with unconstrained convection and unconstrained conduction and a -g/Cp lapse from surface on up.”
Ah, so the atmosphere would cool the oceans by conducting the energy it has just removed from the oceans back to the oceans so it can be radiated to space. Brilliant! Said nobody ever…
“…the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming, raising them from -18C to 15C” That’s inane. The sun warms the oceans, the atm. is cooler above surface by approx. -g/Cp lapse.”
Wait, so now you agree that the claim of climastrologists that the atmosphere over the oceans has a net warming effect is “inane”? Are you working your way around to agreeing that the net effect of the atmosphere is surface cooling but maybe increased radiative gases would reduce its cooling ability? No need to go there, that one’s welded shut as well 😉
“No exit strategy is needed in the basic science as empirical experiment and principles demonstrate”
Climastrologists need an exit strategy soooo badly. Heat in the oceans, aerosol masking, trade winds blowing, pine forests out-gassing, the rodentia are trying everything. Nothing will work.
“The EEH is well principled and not in contention anywhere in science.”
That’s a keeper 😉 Well principled? The message from 1938 is clear – “don’t be doing that, it won’t work”. That “science” is contention right here. Just a little blog? Think again. Blogs have brought the entire climate propaganda machine to its knees. But then you knew that didn’t you? Otherwise you wouldn’t be spending so much time on this….
Trick: “The EEH is well principled and not in contention anywhere in science.”
Argumentum ad vericundium – appeal to authority. You get a public warning for that. 😎
Anyway, the EEH is not “well principled” because it relies on the myth of the Earth being permanently illuminated from all sides by a 240W/m^2 Solar input. Look out of your window every 4 hours Trick, tell us what you see. You won’t be needing any fancy lab gear or digital turkey thermometers for this empirical experiment. 😉
This nonsense is then used to support the myth that the Earth’s surface can’t get warmer than an average 255K without ghg’s. It can when the emissivity of 30% of the surface is significantly lower than 1 and the other 70% retains heat to depth, and the heat source is 1360W/m^2 at zenith under a clear sky.
Learn some basic physics please Trick
Konrad 9:02am: “Now how on earth could a non-radiative atmosphere provide that cooling to the oceans? How would it cool itself?”
With an unforced transparent object at 353K in thermal contact with a forced object from a higher temperature source in steady state equilibrium at 255K radiating to 2.7K, I’ll advise Konrad open up Maxwell’s “Theory of Heat” 1871 and proceed to puzzle this out. Hint: The time constant to 255K surface steady state equilibrium depends on mass and Cp and a bit of integral calculus.
Oh wait, that’s an appeal to authority (of Leibniz et.al.) per tb 10:19am. Konrad should proceed invent ALL the thermo. and calculus theory backed up by more than 150 years of experiment or just construct his own single purpose empirical experiment prove what happens with unconstrained convection and unconstrained conduction at surface interface – if unable design one, just look up & duplicate appropriate experiment of Maxwell’s.
“Climastrologists need an exit strategy soooo badly. Heat in the oceans, aerosol masking, trade winds blowing, pine forests out-gassing, the rodentia are trying everything. Nothing will work.”
There is no heat in the oceans, land or atm. anymore, science dumped that blind alley long ago although some long held terms remain in the jargon. Plenty of primordial and sun’s energy in the oceans, land, atm. though. The aerosol masking is in the measured emissivity as are the rodents.
“Blogs have brought the entire climate propaganda machine to its knees.”
Happen to think this is in part true with the increased speed of communication instead of the maybe 2yr. publication cycle that is well, a bit “controlled” for better or worse. None, I mean NONE, of the basic science thermo. principles from Boyle/Hook/Watt/Carnot forward used in the basic analogue eqn. 1.72 has been challenged in the least. I understand to Konrad having not opened a modern science text (well except for a Bohren 2006 clip) these are strange names indeed and to tb only an appeal to authority.
However, I do acknowledge there is a non-zero chance in the distant future science will rename W/m^2 to Konrads/m^2 having found that solar pond science theory is as Konrad points out from his trailblazing constrained convection experiment.
Trick: Oh wait, that’s an appeal to authority (of Leibniz et.al.) per tb 10:19am.
I’ve read Leibniz et al’s work. No mention of EEH. Baron Fourier is shaking his head in disbelief at the unutterable stupidity of the concept when applied using a constant 240W/m^2 heat source instead of an intermittent 1360W/m^2 heat source.
tb 10:19am 2:28pm: “…the EEH is not “well principled” because it relies on the myth of the Earth being permanently illuminated from all sides by a 240W/m^2 Solar input….Learn some basic physics please”
tb – Ok. Let’s (re)-learn some basic physics since this is a cutting edge science blog from reading the science principles underlying EEH then; thus find out for sure. Have to crack open a modern text of your choosing covering EEH so – Konrad – please skip this post as Konrad won’t understand not having demonstrated acquired the pre-req.s.
Use brevity or I will have to rewrite the easily referenced modern text here and certain copyright laws come into play where ignorance is not a defense. Start from answer for EEH then work backwards thru time to discover EEH basic fundamentals with proper appeal (cite) to Planck’s radiation law authority having 3 fundamental constants of nature therein and Leibniz calculus. About as fundamental as can ever get.
******
Location of effective emission height (EEH) = tau = tau(infinity) – 1 where optical depth is defined 0 at surface and tau(infinity) is total optical depth of atm. and corresponding effective pressure level Pe from tau = tau(infinity) * (1-Pe/Ps)
In words for Konrad, the OLR effectively comes from a pressure level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of an atmosphere. Ps = surface pressure as tb says looking out my window.
tau based on three planet Earth assumptions that tb et. al. is welcome attack:
1) the atm. has a constant scale height
2) the atm. optical absorbers/emitters/scatterers are well mixed
3) pressure broadening does not play a big role so mass absorption coefficient considered constant as does not vary enough with height for earth for basic discussion.
Tau(infinity) is in OLR from integration 0 to infinity (thus Holder’s inequality has to be included) over dz from surface to TOA of already integrated Planck function and atm. density weighting( z).
This OLR from Planck radiation function already integrated over hemisphere angle 0 to 2 pi d(azimuth) and 0 to pi/2 in d(zenith) because we are interested in relevant irradiance being the flux of energy through a hemisphere level (no Holder’s inequality – not integrating to infinity (and beyond per Buzz Lightyear)).
Total irradiance thru this tau height (EEH) is then integral of this function 0 to infinity (thus include Holder’s inequality again) over d(wavelength).
Done. Without having to rely on any myth of the Earth being permanently illuminated from all sides by a 240W/m^2 Solar input.
NB1: Done unless want to challenge appeal (cite) to Planck’s radiation law and Leibniz calculus.
NB2: Check my work with all original authors; no implied transcription warranty or any guarantees.
PS: tb 2:28pm “…an intermittent 1360W/m^2 heat source.” There are no heat sources in modern cutting edge science anymore. There is 1360W/m^2 SW energy source in joules/sec/m^2 radiating from surface of a nearby star using up its fuel.
Konrad says: March 30, 2014 at 2:45 am
“Ray & Ben,
you may find the following paper helpful with regard to SW/UV absorption at depth -”
Yes Konrad. This is a ‘bane’ for the ‘basics’ of ‘energy transport’. We need to ‘mine’ data from ‘environmental papers’, such that you provide, that are produced by National ‘grants’ or ‘whatever’. It would just be nice to read a paper that’s only involved with ‘energy transport’ from time to time.
Perhaps the ‘status quo’ considers that the ‘basic energy transport’ equations are already ‘understood’, but they’re not, and their ‘proofs’ need to be addressed in ‘all environmental papers’!
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says: March 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm
“NB1: Done unless want to challenge appeal (cite) to Planck’s radiation law and Leibniz calculus.
NB2: Check my work with all original authors; no implied transcription warranty or any guarantees.”
NB1: Please reference “Plank’s radiation law” with reference to ‘latent heat’!!!
NB2: It’s a ‘get out clause’.
Best regards, Ray.
The vigour of convection from a heated surface depends on the rate at which temperature declines with height as well as the absolute temperature of the surface.
The average temperature of a heated surface depends on both the amount of incoming radiation and the length of time that the radiation remains absorbed by the surface.
The rate of decline in temperature with height (the lapse rate) is set by the rate at which atmospheric density declines with height because the greater the density the more of any incoming radiation can be absorbed either directly or from the heated surface.
That all applies equally to atmospheres with and without radiative gases.
The slope of the lapse rate can potentially be affected by the presence of radiative gases in an atmosphere because the kinetic energy carried by such gases tends to spread the kinetic energy at the surface up through the vertical column.
That potentially changes the effective emission height for the atmosphere.
Note that changing the effective emission height need not involve a change in surface temperature if the lapse rate slope changes at the same time.
However, a reduction in the rate of decline in temperature with height also reduces the vigour of convection and less vigorous convection pushes less high up into such an atmosphere so the effective emission height drops back again.
Once more, the decline in temperature with height is determined by the decline in density with height and the original lapse rate is restored.
The reason for that being possible is the ability of the radiative gases to radiate directly out to space which means that the system can lose the same amount of energy to space as before radiative gases were introduced but without such a vigorous convective circulation.
The convective circulation in a non -radiative atmosphere must be more vigorous because it is then necessary to return all the energy flowing into convection back to the surface before it can be radiated out to space.
The thermal effect of radiative gases is, therefore, offset by an equal and opposite convective response.
The rules for condensing GHGs such as water vapour are different and need not concern us here.
Despite radiative capability within an atmosphere, the surface temperature, the effective emission height and the slope of the lapse rate are all kept stable on average over time.
If it were correct that radiative gases could contribute to a warmer surface than would otherwise be the case then the warmer surface would result in a faster decline in temperature with height and more vigorous convection.
The problem with that is that adiabatic convection returns as much energy to the surface on the descent as it takes away from the surface on the ascent so the more vigorous convective overturning would create a positive feedback loop which would result in a warmer surface and faster convective circulation with each successive convective cycle.
The atmosphere would soon be blown off into space by the heat building up at the surface but that hasn’t happened for the past 4 billion years.
Trick says: March 30, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“There is no heat in the oceans, land or atm. anymore, science dumped that blind alley long ago although some long held terms remain in the jargon.”
Last time I checked the deep ocean temperature was ~ 275K. Surface layer and thermocline are warmer.
The energy needed to heat all ocean water 1K is ~5E24 J.
So the ocean heat content is at least 1375E24 J.
To call this “no heat” seems slightly of the mark.
Konrad says: March 30, 2014 at 2:45 am
Ray & Ben,
you may find the following paper helpful with regard to SW/UV absorption at depth
Thanks, but I try to keep the discussion simple.
Just have a look at this time-lapse of 22 year SST:
We can see the solar heated surface layer moving north and south with the seasons.
As soon as the sun moves away from a pole, the surface waters cool, and freeze over at high latitudes.
How deep the “moving “band” of water is?
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/woce/
(also have a look at salinity, and see the highest salinity is near the surface. So thermohaline circulation dragging warm water to depth is also nonsensical)
Ben 12:11pm: “So the ocean heat content is at least 1375E24 J.”
Joules (J) are units of energy. You’ve accounted for all the energy in the ocean. It then follows the quantity of heat in joules must be 0; a nonexistent entity, has no substance.
Heat had its day, did what was asked of it and became superseded like my slide rule. I don’t use slide rules anymore either. Any time one reads “heat transfer”, it is everywhere and all the time replaceable by “energy transfer” term. I would mail this to you but now we have blogs for better or worse.
We have ~3,35E14 m^2 ocean surface. There must be more ocean floor than surface and we have hot vents etc.etc..
With the 100 mW/m^2 geothermal flux that gives already 3,35E13 J/s entering the oceans.
Nice round figure. 5E13 J/s due to the above factors..
Over the last 84 million years this amounts to ~1,3E30 J that entered the oceans through the ocean floor. Yet the oceans managed to lose 18K = ~9E25 J in that period.
Seems like a pretty dynamic situation to me.
And all this is excluding the solar heat that enters the surface layer and leaves from there to space again.
( I may have lost or added a zero somewhere in the process 😉
Ben 4:13pm: Sure, there is a lot energy AND a lot of energy transfer in the oceans. There is no heat that used to be there and is now over here, only solar energy (et. al. forms of energy) over there and is now over here.
Trick says: March 31, 2014 at 6:12 pm
“Ben 4:13pm: Sure, there is a lot energy AND a lot of energy transfer in the oceans. There is no heat that used to be there and is now over here, only solar energy.”
Well ,we’ve seen what the sun is capable of on our moon: 197K on average. Bit cold for liquid water.
About “old” heat. Little experiment. We boil a quantity of water. Takes quite some energy.
Next we fill a super thermos bottle with it and close the bottle.
Inside is a small heater, that only adds the negligible heat that is lost through the bottle to the outside. We keep this going for lets say a year.
Would you mind keeping your hands under the bottle when it is emptied, since “Heat had its day, did what was asked of it and became superseded like my slide rule.” ?
Ben 8:03pm: Thanks for giving me a chance at an even bigger soapbox. When your thermos (tm EEH Co. to keep this on topic) is closed, let’s step 1: draw a control volume around it with an electrical cord plugged into power grid & to your small heater sticking out of control volume. Tmean inside is say 372K. Your small heater has a thermostat using up the coal fuel at the local power plant as necessary to maintain constant 372K for a year.
Here is the 1st law of thermodynamics for a system that interacts with its surroundings by doing work on them:
dU/dt = Q – W
Choose W to be positive if work is done by the system. Because this positive work rate entails a decrease in internal energy use a minus sign. Q is the heating rate. U the internal energy varying with time t. All in joules/sec (where have I seen this before?)
In every day speech, heat as a substance is as vigorous as ever. For example, many times I hear that “heat rises.” Huh? I see you do not use the word “heat” in the sense of saying that heat is added to the EEH thermos bottle system but you say “a small heater” is in there. There is no such thing as heat in this system, modern physics says there is internal energy U in there – physically your small heater increases U at a rate dU/dt.
When this system is cooled doing work on its surroundings, why don’t you say that cold has been added to it? Fairness dictates this, meaning a small colder would also be in there also plugged in.
And what about the work? We can change U by doing work on the EEH Thermos. So why don’t we say that the system has work added to it? After all working rate and heating rate are on the same footing in the eqn. above. And why then isn’t work thought of as some kind of colorless, massless, odorless fluid that passes between bodies?
Take your EEH Thermos and shake it, for so long and so vigorous you are sweating to beat the band. Uncap it and measure the Tmean = 373K. +1K wow. Something crossed the control volume – a colorless, odorless, massless work substance? To silence critics you heated the water with your “body heated hands”, wear some nice thick ski gloves.
This is an example in which the temperature of the water increased yet without ANY heat being added to it. This same +1K could have come from the small heater in there so it is impossible to tell how the EEH thermos water evolved from initial to final state. Notice it would be near impossible to specify the rate of working W in terms of thermodynamic variables. BUT I can readily measure the temperature to identify a change of +1K from your shaking if the small heater is unplugged. Use temperature, not heat, not warmer, not colder.
Sometimes fantastic measures are taken to keep alive heat as a substance. It is meaningless to talk of heat as a substance yet you talk about heat that is lost. Did this substance in the process of being lost fall on your foot and you noticed it? How else does heat get to be a substance that can be lost? Is this like teleportation between two points where heat exists on both ends but has no existence on its journey between them? Star Trek fantastic, is it not?
Oh, all you really wanted to know was: “Would you mind keeping your hands under the bottle when it is emptied?”
Yes.
Trick says:
March 30, 2014 at 2:24 pm
————————————–
“Maxwell…Boyle…Hook…Watt…Carnot..”
Trick where am I disputing these peoples work? There is nothing to be gained by claiming I am trying to overturn “150 years of experiment” when all I am doing if disproving the recent claims of climastrologists.
Nowhere did these notable scientists ever claim –
A. Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Or
B. The atmosphere has a net warming effect on the oceans.
These are climastrology-only claims. And climastrologists have no empirical evidence to back these claims, let alone 150 years of it.
And this –
“With an unforced transparent object at 353K in thermal contact with a forced object from a higher temperature source in steady state equilibrium at 255K radiating to 2.7K”
Pure bafflegab. “unforced transparent object”? What is SW/UV penetrating the oceans and heating at depth if not solar forcing?
“or just construct his own single purpose empirical experiment prove what happens with unconstrained convection and unconstrained conduction at surface interface”
So I have to do the empirical experiments climastrologists should have done? Please.
Oh, and it’s not convection and conduction, it should be conduction and evaporation. If you truly understood Maxwell’s work you would know he holds convection to be a mechanical transport driven by conduction. So would that be conduction and evaporation to a radiatively cooled atmosphere or to an atmosphere that cannot radiatively cool itself? It makes all the difference.
“However, I do acknowledge there is a non-zero chance in the distant future science will rename W/m^2 to Konrads/m^2 having found that solar pond science theory is as Konrad points out from his trailblazing constrained convection experiment”
Ah, yet another of your trademark combined ad hominim / argumentum ad verecundiam attacks. But it can’t work. I am clearly not challenging Watt, I am challenging the inane claims of climastrologists like Trenberth and Hanson.
Trick says:
March 30, 2014 at 5:51 pm
———————————–
“Ok. Let’s (re)-learn some basic physics since this is a cutting edge science blog from reading the science principles underlying EEH then; thus find out for sure. Have to crack open a modern text of your choosing covering EEH so – Konrad – please skip this post as Konrad won’t understand not having demonstrated acquired the pre-req.s.”
I’d happily put my design and engineering expertise against any pseudo scientist’s climastrology skillz. You claim basic physics then run to your “modern texts”. What is that if not an admission that “EEH” is a climastrology-only claim with no supporting empirical evidence?
“Location of effective emission height (EEH) = tau = tau(infinity) – 1 where optical depth is defined 0 at surface and tau(infinity) is total optical depth of atm. and corresponding effective pressure level Pe from tau = tau(infinity) * (1-Pe/Ps)”
Everyone is well aware of the assumptions that lead to the creation of a fictitious EEH or ERL and just why climastrologists needed this mathematical fiction.
1. the atm. has a constant scale height
False – Tropopause under which the primary radiative gas, water vapour, is constrained is almost double the altitude at the equator than it is at the poles (15km – 8km)
2. the atm. optical absorbers/emitters/scatterers are well mixed
False – Tallbloke told you to look out your window. See those clouds? They give a visual marker of the complex patterns of water vapour mixing in the atmosphere. Clearly not well mixed.
3. pressure broadening does not play a big role so mass absorption coefficient considered constant as does not vary enough with height for earth for basic discussion.
Ahem.. – Remember the atmospheric window that CO2 was supposed to be closing? The surface doesn’t emit much at 15 microns. You are contradicting your own climastrologists now. They invoked “pressure broadening” to increase the claimed effect of CO2 😉
The concept of an EEH is without value for any modelling of our atmosphere because –
A. (and this is a big one) the 1% water vapour in our atmosphere is the equivalent of vaporising the top 100mm of all the worlds oceans into the air. This gas is the most important radiative gas in our atmosphere. Because of its low concentration, it is not radiating from a 2D shell or layer but in 3D from ground up, with a steadily increasing amount of radiation making it directly to space as altitude increases. Assuming an EEH as a shell at a certain point (usually claimed as ~5km) clearly cannot work as vapour as 1% of the gas it is mixed into will present a far greater radiating area than a 2D shell.
B. Air masses are in constant vertical motion. Heated air masses are hotter than the temperature of the air they are rising through. Also moist rising air masses experience a “heat pulse” as they rise through condensation altitude. There is no set height of emission and using averages and assumptions is always the downfall when dealing with complex systems.
C. Water vapour is not well mixed in our atmosphere as evidenced by cloud formation. For a gas radiating in 3D this means the EEH assumption must also fail
EEH is quite clearly a climastrology-only mathematical fiction. It doesn’t matter if the maths used to calculate it is done correctly, the assumptions underlying the calculations are provably incorrect. Therefore Any result obtained from the use of a fictional EEH must also be incorrect.
Trick says:
March 30, 2014 at 2:24 pm
————————————
Just checking. Were you sure you wanted to invoke the name of Hook? Sir Isaac Newton may take issue with that… 😉
Kontrad 12:30am – “Trick where am I disputing these peoples work?”
My cites to Dr. Bohren’s 1998 and 2006 work show that he carefully develops atm. thermo. theory building upon the cited original writings of “these peoples work” 1st law from theory and empirical work of “Maxwell…Boyle…Hook(e)…Watt…Carnot..”, emissivity/absorptivity/scattering from Planck, Rayleigh. Dr. Bohren includes cites for measurements of Earth atm. looking up from abundant authors (including himself) tropics to polar regions.
From all that 150 yr.s of basics he shows how to use a basic analogue 1.72 eqn. to compute Tmean=255K limit for earth with atm. emissivity declining towards 0.0.
“It is at best an analogue, useful for helping us understand some basic physics, possibly to frame testable hypotheses, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously.”
Then Konrad disputes and crashes all this down 3/21 11:39pm with simple: “Bohen is wrong” meaning Dr. Bohren basic work.
Here Konrad is “disputing these peoples work” citing experiment with constrained convection unlike Earth oceans to show as the atm. emissivity declines toward 0.0 that earth system surface Tmean must increase toward 353K. Konrad offers no cites from “these peoples” original empirical work to support his hypothesis unlike Dr. Bohren.
“unforced transparent object”? What is SW/UV penetrating the oceans and heating at depth if not solar forcing?” Konrad confuses the transparent 0.0 emissivity atm. object with the ocean which is in part the forced object.
“So I have to do the empirical experiments climastrologists should have done? Please.” No, just repeat existing experiment with unconstrained convection, no #4 LDPE and determine if you can still draw different conclusions than “these peoples”.
“…it should be conduction and evaporation..” This would mean there are more than 3 independent energy transfer methods. Evaporative energy transfer? Think about that and let me know if you can really support a 4th independent energy transfer method. Science does allow for cooling IR space instruments that way until coolant runs out.
“I am clearly not challenging Watt…” Yes. You are. If 353K turns out the right answer as atm. emissivity reduces toward 0.0, your challenge will be accepted & so thoroughly that modern text books will forever majorly change. A major revolution like that would be rewarded an honorable response in renaming energy/sec units. Your own wiki page won’t be enough.
******
Konrad 1:16am: The EEH assumptions are incorrect huh? How did we get this far and then you announce this? Clouds being well mixed are not what is needed for EEH. That’s good for a laugh, might have response after that wears off. Just thinking of well mixed clouds provides a certain entertaining amusement. Would atm. then be called fog? What would be well mixed clouds effect on EEH if any? Hmmmmm.
And, yes, Hooke. Stupid spell czech.
Konrad 1:16am: “1. the atm. has a constant scale height. False – Tropopause under which the primary radiative gas, water vapour, is constrained is almost double the altitude at the equator than it is at the poles (15km – 8km)”
True but this is not the scale height H for an atm. which is a constant*Tmean(z) in the local troposphere. Assuming scale height constant H results in density profile ρ(z) = ρs*e^−z/H
H varies ~6-8km on earth and H = 7.29km constant for the standard atm. A meteorologist should know these numbers just as well as birthdate. Plot this density calculation(z) with H constant 7.29km vs. the standard density and you have to use a magnifying glass to see any difference. Ref. Bohren 1998 p.55 Fig. 2.6. Plug that into the equation for local effective emission level tau actual vs. tau with constant H & find likewise just as magnifying glass close.
Konrad’s false is proven false: 1. the atm. has a constant scale height. True enough for basic EEH work.
Trick says:
April 1, 2014 at 3:03 am
“My cites to Dr. Bohren’s 1998 and 2006 work show that he carefully develops atm. thermo. theory building upon the cited original writings of “these peoples work” 1st law from theory and empirical work of “Maxwell…Boyle…Hook(e)…Watt…Carnot..”, emissivity/absorptivity/scattering from Planck, Rayleigh. Dr. Bohren includes cites for measurements of Earth atm. looking up from abundant authors (including himself) tropics to polar regions.
From all that 150 yr.s of basics he shows how to use a basic analogue 1.72 eqn. to compute Tmean=255K limit for earth with atm. emissivity declining towards 0.0.”
———————————————————————————————-
Sorry we can all see what Bohren did. Equation 1.72 is what you use to calculate for MLI (multi layer insulation) used on satellites. These layers need to be vacuum separated. They don’t work when conductively connected. For the atmosphere you would need to solve for gas conduction simultaneously. No matter what you say, you cannot truthfully claim that that the “basic physics” of the “settled science” did this. In fact you have incorrectly claimed on this very thread that “superimposing” non-radiative transports held constant is valid science.
Invoke the names of Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot all you like, but none of these scientists were so stupid that they would believe you could solve for radiative only transports while holding non-radiative transports as constant for moving radiative fluids in a gravity field. Only climastrologists like Hansen or Trenberth would claim that.
What you are doing here is utterly shameful Trick. Using the good name of real scientists to shield pseudo scientists. These people were empiricists not trough feeding political activists.
I challenge you again. Where in the work of Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot did they ever claim –
A. Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Or
B. The atmosphere has a net warming effect on the oceans.
Or
C. That there is an EEH.
You can’t do it can you? Because none of those worthy empirical scientists ever made those claims. Only climastrologists made those claims without any empirical evidence what so ever.
Trick says:
April 1, 2014 at 5:27 am
——————————–
Sorry there is no escape, the EEH assumption is complete tripe. Go on Trick, buy a good IR sensor. Go outside and scan across a 4 octa cloudy sky. -40C clear blue, +10C low cloud. The atmosphere is provably not radiating from a layer or shell. It is radiating in 3D from multiple altitudes in differing amounts at different times. (and NO, averages will not work!)
PS. Oh, on your little swicheroo trying to swap height and optical opacity for density and temperature, perhaps you should check the empirical data on the decline in lapse rate with latitude.
I don’t think one can say that an atmosphere’s EEH is at a single specific height in the vertical plane because of the uneven distribution of density in three dimensions. Greater density lowers the EEH and reduced density raises it.
I think that the EEH in so far as the term has any meaning must be ascertained on a molecule by molecule basis so that any molecule which is in its correct position for its temperature along the adiabatic lapse rate slope is at its own individual EEH.
At that position each molecule is then in equilibrium with DWIR and UWIR netting out to zero and since it is at the correct temperature for its height there is no net conduction or convection either.
It doesn’t even matter how radiative or non radiative the molecule is. As long as it is in its correct position for its temperature along the lapse rate slope then its UWIR and DWIR will net out to zero. The same principle applies for variations in conductive capability.
I propose that the adiabatic lapse rate slope constitutes the average EEH which takes account of both the horizontal and vertical planes and variations in both the conductive and the radiative capabilities of individual molecules.
The height of the EEH for individual molecules can then vary with density, lowering as density increases and rising as density decreases.
That must be right because it is mass density that obstructs the free flow of radiative energy so the greater the density of an atmosphere towards the surface the nearer the surface will be the EEH.
Complications then arise for molecules that are out of the right position for their temperature.
However, there will be as many too warm for their height as are too cold for their height so their net contributions net out to zero too.
If at any time the molecules above and below their correct positions do not net out to zero then the resulting density variations cause convection which then shuffles them around until overall balance is regained.
Applying this to GHGs it would follow that a molecule able to absorb radiatively would rise higher because it would gain more energy than molecules limited to conductive absorption alone and higher energy content would reduce local density causing it and neighbouring non radiative molecules to rise.
If that destabilises overall balance then convection simply changes to restore balance.
Konrad 10:03am: No matter how hard Konrad tries, the basic fundamentals are not in question, not in contention, anywhere except only by Konrad who simply hasn’t studied them well enough. Konrad doesn’t even demonstrate the pre-req.s to do so and endlessly debates established fundamental physics. If only he would put this time into coming up to speed on the basics, he’d be better off in debate.
”I challenge you again. Where in the work of Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot did they ever claim – A. Incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.”
In their 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Atm. DWLWIR is terrestrial radiant energy that is conserved in the ocean water by 1st and increases the ocean water’s entropy by 2nd.
“B. The atmosphere has a net warming effect on the oceans.”
They don’t say this. Konrad is so confused. Atm. can’t generally warm the oceans as it is generally cooler than the oceans; Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot claim the generally cooler atm. does radiate energy absorbed into the oceans which is conserved and raises their entropy ceaselessly. They all agree that the sun warms the oceans.
“C. That there is an EEH.”
Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot, Planck, Rayleigh basic work all support most of Earth’s outgoing radiation effectively comes from a level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of atmosphere. Increase or decrease optical thickness, the EEH increases/decreases. Not sure how many different ways I can write this and Konrad not pick up on it. Endlessly it appears.
Stephen 11:18am: “…until overall balance is regained.”
At higher or lower surface Tmean driving the req.d convective, conductive, radiative energy transfer equilibrium with terrestrial outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at a tau, effective emission height (EEH) from a scale height H for earth ~6-8km.
All from basic, standard, well understood physics for ~150years. None of that is in contention. In any way. Except by Konrad. If he succeeds in changing basic physics proving that 353K surface Tmean is really the proper balance as approach transparent atm. and not 255K, gets his own wiki page; observe no success, no Konrad wiki page so far.
Konrad 10:29am: “..atmosphere is provably not radiating from a layer or shell.”
Concur; that would be the AEH, the actual emission height. Konrad continues confuse effective emission height (EEH) with actual emission height (AEH). EEH is readily calculated and useful in meteorology; AEH is neither known, calculable or useful.
“It is radiating in 3D from multiple altitudes in differing amounts at different times.”
Concur. Konrad thus agrees with the notion of a bath of radiation. This is progress.
Trick said:
“At higher or lower surface Tmean driving the req.d convective, conductive, radiative energy transfer equilibrium with terrestrial outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at a tau, effective emission height (EEH) from a scale height H for earth ~6-8km.”
What Trick is missing is that you do not need a change in surface temperature if convection driven changes offset variations in the average conductive or radiative capability of the atmospheric mass involved.
No need for lower or higher surface Tmean.
Instead, just changes in the EEH for individual molecules as they rise and fall relative to the slope of the adiabatic lapse rate.
Radiative gases too high for their temperature radiate preferentially to space and radiative gases too low for their temperature radiate preferentially to the ground but in the end it all nets out to zero.
That rising and falling smooths out all variations in surface Tmean other than those attributable to mass, gravity or insolation.
If one is considering radiative or conductive variations in individual molecules you must also consider their individual EEHs and the fact is that at any given moment there are as many molecules with an individual EEH above the lapse rate slope as below it so it always nets out to zero thanks to convective overturning.
Thus no change in average surface Tmean over time or in average emission height for the atmosphere as a whole though in both cases there will be variations about the long term mean.
All that happens is that the varying EEH of individual molecules results in them being shuffled around, up and down, as necessary by density differentials causing convection.
Trick says:
April 1, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot, Planck, Rayleigh basic work all support most of Earth’s outgoing radiation effectively comes from a level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of atmosphere. Increase or decrease optical thickness, the EEH increases/decreases.”
… and since the EEH couples to the surface temperature via the lapse rate, the surface temperature goes along for the ride. That’s it in a nutshell.
Miskolczi found the optical thickness remains constant over long periods of time and is insensitive to CO2. He called this an empirical observation. The behavior of global temperatures over the last 17 years confirms this. It would be nice if someone could explain the stability of optical thickness from a theoretical basis.
Click to access E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
Especially see the conclusions.
Trick says: March 31, 2014 at 9:39 pm
“Oh, all you really wanted to know was: “Would you mind keeping your hands under the bottle when it is emptied?”
Yes.”
So we agree that by just replacing the lost energy in a system that system can maintain its total energy content. (temperature in this case).
Back to the oceans: the whole ocean floor is now the heating element, so no energy loss there.
The ocean surface is kept considerably warmer than the deep oceans, so no energy loss possible there as well. Only at high latitudes (mainly around Antarctica) can the deep oceans lose energy.
They cooled down ~18K the last ~84 million years, while receiving an amount of geothermal energy equal to ~1000 times their current energy content.
Now the sun: it adds (almost) all its energy to the top ~100m of the oceans. No use thinking in W/m^2 and SB, just J/s and specific heat capacity of ocean water.
With the current deep ocean temperature of ~275K, do you think the sun is capable of warming the surface layer from ~275K to ~290K (average), at which temperature the energy loss to space is ~equal to the energy thermalized in the surface layer?
(the atmosphere has to slow the energy loss to space from ~400W/m^2 to ~240W/m^2 to balance the energy budget)
Stephen 4:31pm: “..do not need a change in surface temperature if convection driven changes…”
I observe Tmean changes with each monthly report. If convection et. al. acted for “No need for lower or higher surface Tmean….smooths out all variations in surface Tmean…just changes in the EEH” the monthly anomaly would be 0.0, 0.0, 0.0…. boring month after month. No one would be interested. The evidence and physics show Stephen isn’t thinking this through as well as the text book authors, many posters and nature in Tmean observations.
******
pochas 5:50pm: “..the EEH couples to the surface temperature via the lapse rate…” There is no such coupling. Show a formula or cite if so.
The Miskolczi paper discusses unchanging tau (EEH) over a certain time period, this tells less than is needed about measured emissivity of atm. looking up. Watch the pea. Observe tau is not a factor in the simple analogue eqn. 1.72, the measured atm. emissivity (epsilon – to be important need a Greek letter) is the key parameter. Tau is an interesting side show (584 EEH posts! and counting) not used in basic energy balances; useful in learning about planetary atm. meteorological comparisons.
******
Ben 8:12pm: “So we agree that by just replacing the lost energy in a system that system can maintain its total energy content. (temperature in this case).”
dU/dt = Q – W
So if Q=W then U is a constant over time.
Agree geothermal process adds a bit of energy to the surface control volume. Not sure what you are asking in the rest even though no confusing “heat” term used, nice. Sure, the sun is capable warming to ~290K if you consider that to be the ~288K Tmean observed.
Trick says: April 1, 2014 at 10:19 pm
Agree geothermal process adds a bit of energy to the surface control volume. Not sure what you are asking in the rest even though no confusing “heat” term used, nice. Sure, the sun is capable warming to ~290K if you consider that to be the ~288K Tmean observed.
~288K is the average temperature as measured in thermometer huts at ~150cm.
Not many thermometers over the oceans at 150 cm 😉
~290K seems to be the average ocean surface temperature.
So with the surface temperature of over 70% of earths surface set by geothermal heated deep oceans with on top a solar heated surface layer the average surface temperature on earth is explained.
The whole idea that the atmosphere caused the average temperature to increase 33K above the famous 255K can be dumped.
The greenhouse effect is ~0K, and the effect of CO2 in that number is……..
Ben 11:12pm: Sure, the Tmean 1.5m lower would be a bit higher seems I recall reading somewhere that 288K + ~2K at the dirt surface and the ocean water surface is about right but have no cite. You seem to agree.
“So with the surface temperature of over 70% of earths surface set by geothermal heated deep oceans with on top a solar heated surface layer the average surface temperature on earth is explained.”
The basic analogue balance eqn. 1.72 using Stephens et. al. 2012 10 yr.s of CERES data 2000-2010 over land&ocean shows adding the geothermal component contribution moves Tmean from 289.451 to 289.457K. Geothermal energy thus explains .006K not 33K. So the whole basic analogue idea that the increasing opacity of atmosphere above transparent 0.0 emissivity caused the sun raise Tmean +33K above the famous 255K can NOT be dumped.
Trick,
The 255 K number is simply…………wrong. It is a case of good mathematics mated with a poor understanding of materials.
More careful calculations show the correct figure is in the range 197 to 200 Kelvin. Thus the Greenhouse Effect is ~ 90 Kelvin.
gc 12:50am: What exactly is wrong with 255K simple, basic analogue? The 197K to 200K is carefully for no atm. at all, no hydrostatic condition, no oceans.
pochas says: April 1, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Thanks for the link pochas, I was curious where Ferenc was going with this theory. I believe some form of this work was referred to me, but my response was that ‘tau’ can’t account for ‘latent content’.
Atmospheric ‘thickness’ can only disclose any ‘offset’ as ‘WV condenses/water evaporates. The process transposes ‘absorption’ for ‘scattering’ and ‘scattering’ for ‘absorption’ respectively. This doesn’t account for the ‘energy changes’ that take place, only ‘photon depth to extinction’.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK the most prominent property of H2O, in all its (non plasma/ionic) phase states, is the high ‘Q’ of ‘energy’ in the IR ‘spectrum’ that is ‘transitioned’ during a ‘change of phase’. This doesn’t involve an alteration in the way that ‘ambient’ IR is affected by the atmosphere, it involves the way in which ‘phase change transposes thermal energy’.
Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, but ‘water evaporation’ is ‘endothermic’, thus, removes ‘heat’ (thus, IR signatures) from the locality where the evaporation takes place. ‘Water condensation’ is ‘exothermic’, thus, adds ‘heat’ (thus, IR signatures) to the locality where the condensation takes place.
To my mind, we need to compute an entirely different dimension that discloses a ‘forced’ brilliance enhancement, or brilliance attenuation, to the theoretical ‘dry standard atmosphere’ WRT ‘latent energy transport’.
Best regards, Ray.
Trick says:
April 1, 2014 at 2:12 pm
————————————
“No matter how hard Konrad tries, the basic fundamentals are not in question, not in contention, anywhere except only by Konrad.”
No, still no good. No matter how many times you say it, the work of climastrologists is not “basic fundamentals”. The idea of a net radiative GHE remains an unproven hypothesis with all empirical evidence now against it as every model based on the hypothesis has failed.
“Konrad doesn’t even demonstrate the pre-req.s to do so and endlessly debates established fundamental physics. If only he would put this time into coming up to speed on the basics, he’d be better off in debate.”
Perhaps you missed the mention of engineering awards and technology museum exhibits of my work up thread? Trick, a person who denied that convective circulation could be driven by removing energy from a fluid column should probably not be casting aspersions on my understanding of fundamental physics.
“In their 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Atm. DWLWIR is terrestrial radiant energy that is conserved in the ocean water by 1st and increases the ocean water’s entropy by 2nd.”
No, you were challenged to show where Maxwell, Boyle, Watt or Carnot ever claimed that incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. The misuse of their work by others is not an answer.
“They don’t say this. Konrad is so confused. Atm. can’t generally warm the oceans as it is generally cooler than the oceans; Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot claim the generally cooler atm. does radiate energy absorbed into the oceans which is conserved and raises their entropy ceaselessly. They all agree that the sun warms the oceans.”
“ Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot claim”?! Excuse me! No that just won’t do. That is the misuse of their work by others, not their claim. DWLWIR is immediately rejected by the skin evaporation layer, returning the energy back to the atmosphere for no change in the ocean or atmosphere energy levels.
“Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot, Planck, Rayleigh basic work all support most of Earth’s outgoing radiation effectively comes from a level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of atmosphere. Increase or decrease optical thickness, the EEH increases/decreases. Not sure how many different ways I can write this and Konrad not pick up on it. Endlessly it appears”
I have picked up on your tricks. You can repeat them endlessly, but there is no way out. Use your fictional EEH, play your games with optical opacity, back calculate using an averaged lapse rate and you will always end up in the same silly place, claiming that the atmosphere has a net warming effect on the oceans. Your maths shows the oceans being raised from -18C to +15C by radiative gases, therefore your maths is garbage. Empirical experiment shows the oceans being cooled from ~80C to 15C by the atmosphere. And how does the atmosphere cool itself?
Using Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot, Planck and Rayleigh as a shield for climastrologists is disgraceful. It is the equivalent of using the name of Norman Borlaug to shield Lysenko.
Maxwell would have known the importance of evacuated vessels for radiative transfer experiments.
Boyle would have know about buoyancy changes due to diabatic process.
Watt would never have ignored the specific heat of our oceans.
Carnot would have understood the giant vapour/condensate heat pump of moist tropospheric vertical circulation.
Planck would have understood that it is not just w/m2 but specific frequencies that are important in the heating of transparent materials.
Rayleigh would have known, unlike yourself, that driving convective circulation by removing energy from a fluid column was entirely possible.
Pierrehumbert, Trenberth, Hanson, Santer, Mann, Karoly, Gerigis, Jones and the rest are just the Lysenkos of the modern age.
gallopingcamel says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:50 am
————————————
Yes, but only for a desert planet 😉
Trick says:
April 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm
———————————
“Concur; that would be the AEH, the actual emission height. Konrad continues confuse effective emission height (EEH) with actual emission height (AEH).”
No the is no AEH either (I think you just made that one up..). Radiating in 3D means no averaging or shells, heights or layers for maths games.
“EEH is readily calculated and useful in meteorology”
Not meteorology, climastrology only. Could you please stop try to disgrace other legitimate fields of scientific endeavour with the claims of climastrologists?
“Concur. Konrad thus agrees with the notion of a bath of radiation. This is progress.”
Actually it could be progress Trick. If you can understand that 3D radiation is what is happening then you are close to understanding how radiative gases have a net cooling effect in our atmosphere. The use of EEH or ERL is a mental trap. What it creates is a fictional mathematical layer only slightly larger in area than the planet’s surface, but at a lower temperature. This leads to the false assumption that radiation from this layer cannot act to cool the atmosphere. All you need to understand is that 1% water vapour in the atmosphere is the equivalent of vaporising the top 100mm of all the world’s oceans into a radiating fog in the atmosphere with a surface area so great that it can easily offset its lower radiating temperature to provide net cooling of the atmosphere.
When you stop trying optical opacity games in the vertical dimension only and go 3D (with non uniform distribution) then the real effective radiating area of the atmosphere can be understood.
Konrad 2:21am: Coming to grips with the basic physics has really hit a nerve with Konrad, he drops the gloves (hockey term). This diatribe is a remarkable low point and very repetitive, little new or old. Try to keep this brief. Reply to stuff of which I can make at least some sense.
“The idea of a net radiative GHE remains an unproven hypothesis” GHE is proven in the modern age: Satellites now measure 255K, thermometers measure 288K. Eqn. 1.72 explains the basic theory behind the measurements from 1st principles and measured input, effective emission height (EEH) theory also helps understand the satellite measurements.
“Perhaps you missed the mention of engineering awards and technology museum exhibits of my work.” No, I didn’t.
“The misuse of their work by others is not an answer.” So I made sure not answer using others work, only the written original words of Maxwell, Boyle, Watt and Carnot et.al. grand masters will do. Cites are well captured in Bohren 1998 & 2006. Try actually reading them, those guys were good. Principles remain.
“DWLWIR is immediately rejected by the skin evaporation layer” Rejected? Ok, now besides radiant energy being absorbed, emitted, reflected, scattered we are treated to the Konrad process of “rejected”. Was this new process one of your awards? How does “rejected” differ from the others exactly? When should it be applied in place of the others? Under what conditions does it operate, all the time, everywhere, all matter or more limited, just in water not on moon? What are the basic assumptions in “rejected” process?
“…returning the energy back to the atmosphere for no change in the ocean or atmosphere energy levels.” Energy isn’t conserved!? 1st law doesn’t matter in a “rejected” process huh? Did Konrad win an award for writing stuff can break 1st law? That would make a wiki page all the more appropriate.
“Use your fictional EEH” Concur. EEH is fictional. Planes fly thru it none the wiser much like the sound barrier. Don’t understand why complain about actual emission height though, THAT is real, instruments capture the results.
Things I didn’t write or claim that Konrad just makes up to suit his view, talk about fictional:
“convective circulation could be driven by removing energy from a fluid column”
“back calculate using an averaged lapse rate”
“the atmosphere has a net warming effect on the oceans”
“Your maths shows the oceans being raised from -18C to +15C by radiative gases” Hint: No, it is the sun raising temperature Konrad. Konrad it is the sun, its the sun Konrad, not the moon, it is the sun Konrad, not the atm., it is the sun raising surface temperature Konrad. Get my drift?
“Pierrehumbert, Trenberth, Hanson, Santer, Mann, Karoly, Gerigis, Jones”
2:43am: “(I think you just made that (AEH) up..).”
Google “actual emission height” find 5,230 results in 0.50 sec.s at the moment, not all my work.
“Could you please stop try to disgrace other legitimate fields of scientific endeavour with the claims of climastrologists?”
Make two lists showing who is on which list. Which subject is on which list. Which law is observed on the one list but not on the other list. I need a roadmap.
Trick says:
April 2, 2014 at 4:39 am
——————————-
Trick, no matter what you try the radiative GHE hypothesis is provably in error.
The calculations of the climastrologists you defend show radiative gases in our atmosphere raising the “surface” temperature of the planet by ~33C.
71% of the planets “surface” is ocean. No matter how you rephrase the claims of climastrologists, they are still claiming that radiative gases in our atmosphere raise the oceans from -18C to 15C.
This is essentially claiming that the net effect of the atmosphere, including radiative gases, over the oceans is warming.
Empirical observation and experiment proves that the net effect of our atmosphere, including radiative gases, over the oceans is cooling.
Trick, just what will it take for you to admit the truth that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans?
Konrad: the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans
The net effect of ‘ghg’s’ is cooling, but the mass of the atmosphere has a warming effect.
tallbloke says:
April 2, 2014 at 6:56 am
“The net effect of ‘ghg’s’ is cooling, but the mass of the atmosphere has a warming effect”
———————————————
I believe it would be more accurate to say that higher atmospheric pressure allows the sun to drive ocean temperatures higher by increasing the temperature required for evaporation.
However only a radiative atmosphere can provide atmospheric cooling for the oceans as a non-radiative atmosphere has no way to cool itself.
At current atmospheric pressure 100C would be the limit of solar ocean warming under a non-radiative atmosphere, however due to very limited gas conduction back to the 29% land area, it is unlikely this could ever be reached. 80C is a more reasonable figure based on evidence from deep convecting (not salt gradient) solar ponds.
I am taking atmospheric pressure as a given and just comparing radiative to non-radiative atmospheres. The difference is dramatic over the oceans as around 70% of cooling is by evaporation to the atmosphere which must then find a way to cool, but actually the same issue exists for land as well. However over land Tmin is raised by a radiative atmosphere and Tmax reduced. This is why the warmists love saying just “surface” not “land & ocean” because more games can be played.
The problem here, like it or not, is that to some extent the warmists have “framed the narrative”. Sadly too many sceptics fall for the “surface” trick and try and work out the effect of an atmosphere over a non-existent blackbody. Think “land & ocean” and the critical error in the radiative GHE assumption becomes obvious. Our atmosphere with radiative gases is clearly cooling our oceans and a non-radiative atmosphere could never provide the same cooling.
Wherein lies the problem and the answer? Why don’t the standard S-B equations work? The answer is in old science from the 60’s and the space program. The science of “selective coatings” and space vehicle thermal control. The science missing from the “basic physics” of the “settled science” of AGW.
To be continued…
Trick says: April 2, 2014 at 12:04 am
Geothermal energy thus explains .006K not 33K. So the whole basic analogue idea that the increasing opacity of atmosphere above transparent 0.0 emissivity caused the sun raise Tmean +33K above the famous 255K can NOT be dumped.
Geothermal energy explains the 275K deep ocean temperature, which is already 20K ABOVE your 255K, and more importantly ~80K ABOVE the lunar average surface temperature.
I hope you’re not implying that the atmosphere can warm all of the oceans ~80K.
Konrad says: April 2, 2014 at 2:22 am
Yes, but only for a desert planet 😉
Replacing sand or rock or similar with water only increases the energy needed to reach the same temperature, apart from the fact that solar radiation penetrates much deeper into water than into rocks etc.
So having oceans iso of “solids” as surface means that a lot more energy is needed to reach the same temperature.
see http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html
Specific heat for sand, basalt, concrete etec. is ~800-900 J/kg/K
Specific heat for water is over 4100 J/kg/K.
tallbloke says: April 2, 2014 at 6:56 am
The net effect of ‘ghg’s’ is cooling, but the mass of the atmosphere has a warming effect.
The mass of the atmosphere reduces the heat loss to space, no warming.
This is a simple isolation situation.
Replace the atmosphere with an isolation blanket. Temperature on the inside 290K, temperature on the outside 255K, and thus radiating 240 W/m^2 to space.
How much energy is needed to maintain the 290K temperature on the inside?