I am indebted to Hans Jelbring, who has kindly given his permission to post his 2003 paper as published in the journal ‘Energy and Environment’. Permission was sought after talkshop reader Richard Courtney observed that there are apparent similarities between this paper and the recently posted ‘Unified theory of Climate’ by Nikolov and Zeller. Hans informs us he may join in discussion after Ned Nikolov has made a clarification statement scheduled for this coming week.
PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.
THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003
ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change.
1. INTRODUCTION
The average global surface temperature minus the average infrared black body
radiation temperature, as observed from space, defines the GE of a planet. The name
GE is quite misleading since the physical processes causing warmth in a greenhouse
have little in common with the processes causing warmth on a planetary surface. This
nomenclature will be kept here solely because of its general, although improper use in
scientific literature and news media.
On Earth the GE is +15–(–18) = +33 K. The GE on Mars that has little atmosphere
is around 0 K but it is around +500 K on Venus that has dense atmosphere.
The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been
acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons. Its numerical value
can be calculated using familiar knowledge in physics. To clarify concepts and
simplify calculations, some restrictions in planetary atmospheric conditions are
introduced in a thought experiment involving an idealised planetary body. This
technique isolates the atmospheric mass influence and then determines the value of GE
when both the influence of radiative interaction with space and other extraterrestrial
processes are omitted. Also discussed is whether or not the model results are a fair
approximation concerning the physical situation in real planetary atmospheres. The
answer is a conditional yes – depending on the unique physical condition in which
each specific planetary atmosphere dwells.
It is remarkable that the hypothesis claiming a quantitatively important AGW has
survived for more than 100 years. Svante Ahrrenius first proposed it 1896 (ref. 1). His
hypothesis was correctly questioned by contemporary scientists on the basis that it
omitted important convective vertical energy fluxes. Since then the number of
“greenhouse gases” have expanded and the models have been modified, but they are
still mainly “radiative models”. Water vapour (gas), the most important greenhouse
gas, has not been treated as very important and as an independent forcing agent in such
models. The radiative impacts of water droplets, fog, clouds, snow and ice crystals are
poorly modelled. These are all excellent infrared emitters and therefore must influence
the energy fluxes in other ways than radiative greenhouse gas models suggest. The
importance of the surface atmospheric mass density in creating GE was first pointed
out by myself in1998 (ref. 2 p. 31–32). This article is a result of my continued interest
in this topic. The basic theoretical knowledge will be quoted from textbook literature.
“An introduction to Dynamic meteorology” by James R. Holton (ref. 3) has been
chosen as appropriate for this purpose.
2. GE IN A MODEL PLANET ATMOSPHERE
2.1 The model planet
A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space. The model
planet and its atmosphere are specified below. Assign the mass m0 to the atmosphere
of Earth.
The model planet globe (G) is spherical with a surface area (A) and a mass (M0)
equal to the mass of Earth and with a radius (R0) equal to the average radius of
Earth. Its surface is solid and there is no external gravity force or any other
extraterrestrial force acting on it.
G and the atmosphere (AT) are surrounded by a concentric, tight, black spherical
shell with a surface area (S). The constant distance (D) between the surface with
area A and the surface with area S is very small in relation to R0. Therefore, the
gravity force (g) exerted by G is approximately constant between the surfaces
with areas A and S.
G has a dry atmosphere (AT) where all atmospheric constituents are ideal gases.
The atmospheric mass (m ) and the mass of the surface with area S are small in
relation to M0. Therefore, the gravity field caused by m and the surface with area
S can be neglected.
The surfaces with areas A and S are thermally insulated preventing heat from
entering into G and infrared radiation to reach space.
AT is contained between the surfaces with areas A and S. The minimum allowed
pressure of AT is 0.1 bar.
The thermal heat storage capacities of the solid surface material, the shell and the
insulation are negligible.
2.2 A proof
A. Axioms
The laws in physics are valid. A model planet atmosphere according to paragraph 2.1
is postulated. Equilibrium atmospheric conditions have been reached meaning that the
average total energy of atmospheric molecules is constant. Effects of enthalpy and
entropy are assumed to be negligible.
B. Statement
The GE is hypothesised to be independent of the amount of “greenhouse gases” in a
dry atmosphere.
C. Proof
Three similar thought experiments are conducted by changing only the atmospheric
mass. In the experiments, I–III, the atmospheric masses are m1=m0, m2=2m0 and
m3=3m0 where m0 can be chosen within a wide range.
– The atmospheric mass per unit area is constant in each experiment. This is a
consequence of the atmospheric mass being able to relocate itself and produce a
uniform surface pressure, regardless of its initial physical conditions.
– The pressure differences between the surfaces with areas A and S are m0g/A,
2m0g/A and 3m0g/A in experiments I–III. The force of gravity will produce
pressure differences that are proportional to m.
The energy content in the model atmosphere is fixed and constant since no energy
can enter or leave the closed space. Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric
energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an
average sense, will have the same total energy. In this situation the atmosphere has
reached energetic equilibrium. The crucial question is what temperature difference
(GE) will exist between A and S?
The physical situation above is well known in meteorology from treating adiabatic
processes. For such a process the sum of kinetic, internal and potential energy is
constant by definition (ref. 2 p. 229). An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy
loss or gain to the surroundings. For example, when an air parcel ascends the
temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due to the work
against the gravity field.
In an ideal gas atmosphere, the adiabatic temperature lapse rate has to be –g/cp
where cp is the heat capacity of the gas (ref 2 p. 49). Theoretical calculations are well
confirmed by observational evidence in the atmosphere of Earth. The adiabatic
temperature lapse rate on Earth is thus –9.81/1004 = –0.0098 K/m. As James R.
Holton concluded after deriving this result: “Hence, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is
approximately constant throughout the lower atmosphere.”
The temperature lapse rate in our model atmosphere also has to be –g/cp, since its
atmosphere is organized adiabatically. Hence, it is possible to calculate the
temperature difference (GE) between the surfaces with areas A and S in our three
thought experiments. The solution is identical in all three experiments and its value is
simply Dg/cp. Thus, the temperature difference (GE ) between the surfaces with areas
A and S is independent of density in the atmosphere. It also follows that it is
independent of the absolute average temperature of the model atmosphere since the
initial constant energy content of the atmosphere can be chosen arbitrarily.
Since no assumptions have been made concerning the gases except that they are
ideal, the statement is proven valid. In fact the statement can be expanded and a more
specific version is: The greenhouse effect (GE ), expressed as temperature lapse rate
per meter, in a model atmosphere postulating energetic equilibrium, is constant and
independent of the radiative properties of the ideal gases. It is also independent of the
density of the atmosphere and of the absolute average temperature of the same.
2.3 Model atmospheres contrasted with real ones
Observational evidence implies that the static situation in the model atmosphere is a
good or a reasonable approximation of real atmospheres. This is very surprising since
planetary atmospheres are energetically open systems, involving a number of energy
flux processes. Perhaps this is one reason why the GE produced by gravity and
atmospheric mass has not been discovered or at least included in earlier discussions of
Global Warming issues and contexts.
Real atmospheres impose some constraints that have to be met by such models. The
atmosphere should have a certain absolute minimum troposphere thickness. The
atmosphere of Mars is too thin and thus lacks a measurable GE. In contrast, Venus,
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune do have thick atmospheres and substantial GEs,
according to observational evidence.
A sufficiently dense atmosphere will also dampen temperature variations related to
daily and seasonal variations of irradiation. This dampening effect is small on Mars
and large on Venus. The day and night temperature difference of Venus’ upper
troposphere is only around 5K although night and day lengths are equal to several
Earth months.
Real atmospheres are also not dry, since clouds occur and thus condensation
processes exist. Observational evidence from Earth and theoretical deductions imply
that the dry adiabatic lapse rate in such cases has to be replaced by the “pseudo
adiabatic temperature lapse rate” (ref. 2 p. 332). This will always have a lower
numerical value (around 0.0070 instead of 0.0098 K/m on Earth) than the dry “ideal”
one. It can also be argued that a cloud cover will help in redistributing and levelling
out the atmospheric energy content below the upper cloud surface. Liquids and solid
matter (raindrops, ice crystals, fog and snow flakes) radiate more effectively than
“greenhouse gases”.
This is readily evidenced by the conditions on Mars and also Earth. A dominant
infrared radiation from the planetary surface directly into space will hinder the
capability of the atmosphere to reach an adiabatic energetic equilibrium. Our model is
a better model if the planetary atmosphere is dense. Interestingly, the model
atmosphere will develop a state of energetic equilibrium regardless of whether light
directly hits the planetary surface or not. This provides an explanation of why Venus
has an (quasi or wet) adiabatic temperature lapse rate in its troposphere. Only 2.5% of
solar irradiation can reach its surface. Even less radiation is reaching the surface of the
great planets. Still, it seems that observed temperature lapse rates of their atmospheres
are close to the calculated theoretical pseudo adiabatic temperature lapse rates.
The minimum absolute atmospheric temperature is mostly reached at an
atmospheric density around 0.1 bar in all the planetary atmospheres mentioned above,
except on Mars. This fact implies that the maximum radiation into space mainly is
emitted from high altitudes in dense atmospheres. This layer has been named
Atmosphere-Space Interface in my thesis (ref 2 p. 42–44). If that is the case, the
surface temperature of a planet can be found by calculating “backwards”. The reason
being that the average black body temperature of the planetary atmosphere is uniquely
determined by irradiation and albedo values. The surface temperature of Venus can be
calculated readily in this manner. This temperature has little to do with the fact that
95% of its atmosphere consists of the “greenhouse” gas carbon dioxide. The 500 K GE
is completely explained by it having a 92 times thicker atmosphere than the Earth.
3. ATMOSPHERIC MASS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
It should be noted that the existence and magnitude of atmospheric mass induced GE
has nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is not caused by changes in
atmospheric mass on Earth. I do not deny that many processes are affecting climate
change. Important processes include albedo changes, Milancovitch variables changing
irradiation, unknown extraterrestrial factors, global mean wind speed, variations of the
production of Mobile Polar Highs (as described by professor Marcel Leroux, ref. 4)
just to mention some.
However, this paper only considers an atmosphere consisting of ideal gases and that
is a closed system. The Earth’s atmosphere differs from this consideration in that it
contains gases that are not ideal and water enters and leaves it (i.e. evaporation and
precipitation). It is acknowledged that these differences will have some effect on the
magnitude of the Earth’s GE.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusion, derived from the model atmosphere of this paper, is the fact that
there has to exist a substantial greenhouse effect (GE ) which is mass dependent and
which will develop independently of the amount of greenhouse gases in any real
planetary atmosphere.
The generally claimed importance of “greenhouse” gases rests on an unproven
hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our
atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are
poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or
omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is
wrongly claimed being caused by “greenhouse gases”. The considerations in this
paper indicate that effects of the greenhouse gases, other radiative effects, and
convection effects all might modulate GE to a minor unknown extent.
Hence, the atmospheric mass exposed to a gravity field is the cause of the
substantial part of GW. The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater
GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.
The GE described here has to exist and dominate on planets where the above
mentioned restrictions are fulfilled. This is the case on Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus
and Neptune. Also, the restrictions are partly fulfilled within our own atmosphere.
Exactly how well should be a target for future research.
The reasoning above opens up a quite new insight. Climate change might primarily
be caused by changes in the absolute mean temperature of the whole atmosphere while
retaining an approximately constant temperature difference (GE) between the
planetary surface and the radiative interface to space. The published calculated
magnitudes of AGW are simply falsifiable artefacts, and in any case much too large.
If there is a measurable AGW caused by variation in “greenhouse gases” it should be
sought in processes affecting the absolute average temperature of the whole
atmosphere.
This paper has purposely been kept more qualitative than quantitative to avoid
elaborate formula and explanations – and to make it easy for all to digest. The more
theoretically competent readers should have few problems if they wish to perform
quantitative calculations for themselves, following the guidelines presented here.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without
which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer
reviewers making the publication a fact.
6. REFERENCES
1 Arrhenius. S. 1896. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature on
the ground. The Philosophic Magazine 41, 237–276.
2 Jelbring, H. R. Thesis 1998. Wind Controlled Climate. Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics,
Stockholm University. 111pp.
3 Holton, J. R. 1979. An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. Academic Press, London
and New York. 391pp.
4 Leroux, M. 1996 (French), 1998 (English), Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate,
Wiley/Praxis series in Atmospheric Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Publishers. 365pp.
The citation for this article is:
Jelbring H, ‘The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass’, Energy & Environment,• Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, (2003)
The paper is available here:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Keep it constructive. Hans hopes that the cross fertilisation which may occur between his paper and that of Nikolov and Zeller will take the science forward, and that “some real (positive) surprises might turn up”
An admirable sentiment.
It looks very similar to N & Z in essence and pretty much as I have understood it to be from the physics of my schooldays.
Perhaps there could also be cross fertilisation on the ways that I have proposed to link these findings to the wider climate scene ?
In particular the ideas I have put forward as to how and why the system rejects the energy attributable to GHG thermal characteristics leaving the mass / density aspect as the dominant temperature controller.
And if a truly Unified Theory is to emerge I need assistance at the level of these gentlemen to demonstrate the relationships between top down solar effects and bottom up oceanic effects on the energy transfer mechanisms so as to confirm (hopefully) that the primary adjustment mechanism to retain system equilibrium is surface air pressure redistribution.
And that the effects of human emissions would be trivial compared to natural variability.
The jets shifted 1000 miles or more from MWP to LIA and LIA to date from natural causes so it would be good to ascertain how far they might need to shift to cancel out any effect from our emissions. I would be surprised if it were as much as a mile or two.
Any model should include the oceans mass and its volumetric heat capacity, which related to that of the atmosphere it is several thousand times.
It is not a matter only of “temperature” but of transformation of energy, as in the case of living organisms on earth, including human beings, though its participation, apart of singular cases as in the UHI is minimal its role has been well considered, by Green House Effect global warmers, as to cooperate in the minimization of the supposed GHE as in the so called “eco-fuels”, originally a product of transformation of light into “energy” as food (carbohydrates), etc.
Also it must be considered that “heat”, measured as “temperature”(IRR) it is but a fraction of the spectroscopic spectrum and it is not only caused by incoming “heat” as such but as the result of other wavelengths or frequencies interacting with the local environment.
And as for “the laws of physics are valid”…that is OK, provided they can be tested and confirmed experimentally, if this is not the case they are just working hypothesis, may be nice, beautiful, even convenient, but not necessarily scientific.
Whether the radiative transfer theory or the gravity theory of surface temperature is correct cannot be resolved through argument. That approach has repeatedly led to scientific blunders throughout history.
Cause and effect lead to circular arguments in science, because every cause has its own cause. Eventually you run into a wall called the unknown – those things we have not yet discovered. Such is the case with gravity for example – we can predict the effects but the cause remains unknown.
At the end of the day, the only tests that is meaningful in science is the ability to make predictions that are unexpected and can be verified. If a theory fails any test, it is likely incorrect. The leveling off of temperatures in the face of record increases in GHG is the mark of a failed theory.
Had surface temperatures continued to increase and accelerate as was largely expected, then the gravity theory of surface temperature would not have gotten even a first look. Whether it is going to gain traction largely depends on the ability of the theory to predict things that are not obvious or expected.
The CET shows something like a 0.7 C temperature increase per century for 3 centuries. So, a prediction of rising temperatures on its own is not unexpected. The observation that Argo is not showing an increase in ocean temperatures was unexpected and flies in the face of GHG theory. Falling oceans levels also fly in the face of GHG theory.
Here is a series of plots of Argo data that demonstrates the GHG theory of AGW is at odds with observed oceans temperatures in light of increased CO2 levels.
ferd berple:
Sorry, but the warmists are a step ahead of you here. The reason we’ve seen see no warming over the last ten years is that the positive TOA forcings from increased CO2 levels have been completely offset by negative forcings from sulfate aerosols emitted by Chinese coal plants and decreased solar activity over this period. Here are the estimates:
Greenhouse gases – plus 0.35 w/m2
Black carbon – plus 0.06 w/m2
Sulfate aerosols – minus 0.26 w/m2
Solar – minus 0.14 w/m2
So AGW is still alive and well – at least according to Jim Hansen, who came up with these numbers.
@Stephen Wilde
“And if a truly Unified Theory is to emerge I need assistance at the level of these gentlemen to demonstrate the relationships between top down solar effects and bottom up oceanic effects on the energy transfer mechanisms so as to confirm (hopefully) that the primary adjustment mechanism to retain system equilibrium is surface air pressure redistribution.”
Amen to the bottom up oceanic effects bit
[From wikipedia]
Types of lapse rates
There are two types of lapse rate:
“Environmental lapse rate – which refers to the actual change of temperature with altitude for the stationary atmosphere (i.e. the temperature gradient)
The adiabatic lapse rates – which refer to the change in temperature of a parcel of air as it moves upwards (or downwards) without exchanging heat with its surroundings. The temperature change that occurs within the air parcel reflects the adjusting balance between potential energy and kinetic energy of the molecules of gas that comprise the moving air mass. There are two adiabatic rates:[6] Dry adiabatic lapse rate
Moist (or saturated) adiabatic lapse rate” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmospheric_moisture/lapse_rates_1.html
“In “The Atmosphere” we discovered that air temperature usually decreases with an increase in elevation through the troposphere. The decrease in temperature with elevation is called the environmental lapse rate of temperature or normal lapse rate of temperature. Recall that the normal lapse rate of temperature is the average lapse rate of temperature of .65o C / 100 meters. The environmental lapse rate of temperature is the actual vertical change in temperature on any given day and can be greater or less than .65o C / 100 meters. Also recall that the decrease in temperature with height is caused by increasing distance from the source of energy that heats the air, the Earth’s surface. Air is warmer near the surface because it’s closer to its source of heat. The further away from the surface, the cooler the air will be. It’s like standing next to a fire, the closer you are the warmer you’ll feel. Temperature change caused by an exchange of heat between two bodies is called diabatic temperature change. There is another very important way to change the temperature of air called adiabatic temperature change.” —
[For Citation: Ritter, Michael E. The Physical Environment: an Introduction to Physical Geography.
2006. excerpted Jan 2012]
[ quotes, references, copyright added — Tim]
“Nature will redistribute the contained atmospheric
energy (using both convective and radiative processes) until each molecule, in an
average sense, will have the same total energy”
This is the critical postulate of the argument. Note that “total energy” includes kinetic energy of translational motion, potential energy of position in the gravitational field, kinetic energy of intra-molecular rotational and vibrational motions, and potential energy of intra-molecular bond configuration.
The 0th law of thermodynamics is often said to imply that when two bodies are in thermal communication with each other they will tend to equilibrate their temperatures. At Roy Spencer’s blog
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/#comment-32416
Christopher Game wrote:
“Dr Spencer is supported by a grand tradition. Maxwell and Gibbs and Boltzmann all considered a column of air in a very tall isolating chamber, subject to a vertical graviational field, and left to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. However the air distribution starts out, when thermodynamic equiibrium is reached, the gravitational field makes the pressure at the bottom higher and at the top lower. Again at thermodynamic equilibrium, the temperature, however, is the same at every altitude. A pressure gradient does not create a temperature gradient in this situation of an isolated column.”
The critical conclusion is that “at thermodynamic equilibrium, the temperature, however, is the same at every altitude”
So is that true, or would the equilibration of total energy sequester some energy in the form of gravitational potential energy so that the measured temperature, which measures translational kinetic energy only, reveal the adiabatic temperature gradient in such an isolated column?
In the study of weather/climate of the earth the surface of the sea is the best place to start. Everything begins at that interface of wind and wave. pg
I just posted this at WUWT:
“This is the simplest explanation of what N & Z are confirming with their equations but I see that Konrad has put forward a neat alternative:
“A warming effect in the atmosphere arises because between coming in and going out the radiant energy is ‘processed’ by the molecules in the atmosphere into heat energy and then back again, often many times for a single parcel of radiant energy, the number of times being directly proportionate to the density of the atmosphere. It is the density, not the composition which gives more or less opportunities for such collisions between radiant energy and molecules whilst the incoming and outgoing radiant energy is negotiating the atmosphere. When an atmospheric molecule absorbs radiant energy it vibrates faster thereby becoming warmer. It is momentarily warmer than the surrounding molecules so it releases the radiant energy again almost immediately. The speed of release is again dictated by overall atmospheric density because greater density renders it less likely that the neighbouring molecules are cool enough for a release of radiant energy to occur. However the time scales remain miniscule on the level of an individual molecule BUT on a planetary scale they become highly significant and build up to a measurable delay between arrival of solar radiant energy and it’s release to space.
It is that interruption in the flow of radiant energy in and out which gives rise to a warming effect. The warming effect is a single persistent phenomenon linked to the density of the atmosphere and not the composition. Once the appropriate planetary temperature increase has been set by the delay in transmission through the atmosphere then equilibrium is restored between radiant energy in and radiant energy out.”
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=19
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved” July 16th 2008.
Now interestingly in about 2003 Hans Jelbring came to much the same conclusion:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
And even more interestingly I have always taken the proposition as read since my schooldays. I don’t know when the radiative processes became regarded as more influential but whenever it was it seems to have been wrong.
N & Z’s calculations also support the supplementary proposition that the radiative component is completely ejected by the system leaving the gravitational component dominant. As it happens I concur with that and have always believed that to be the case intuitively.
Anyway, the entire body of my work over the past 4 years has been based on those two propositions, namely:
i) The gravitational component is dominant and
ii) The radiative component is ejected by the system.
So. if anyone does read my work they will find what I consider to be an almost complete climate description based on those two propositions.
Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller have provided me with the theoretical and quantitative underpinning for all that I have been working on.
“In the study of weather/climate of the earth the surface of the sea is the best place to start. Everything begins at that interface of wind and wave. pg”
Correct, and I can make it even more specific for you:
“That 1mm deep 0.3 cooler layer is a critical diagnostic indicator but as far as I can tell it has never been recognised as such. It is disturbed by diurnal and seasonal variations and by changes in wind speed but on average over time it is a permanent fixed feature of our ocean surfaces.
The point where that cooler layer is in contact with the ocean bulk below is the physical location where the equilibrium temperature of the oceans is set and maintained.
Higher atmospheric pressure or higher solar shortwave input would make that layer shallower and less cool with the equilibrium temperature of the ocean bulk rising. Lower atmospheric pressure or lower solar shortwave input would make that layer deeper and cooler with the equilibrium temperature of the ocean falling.”
Click to access TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf
“THe Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature”
Go Stephen! 🙂
A bit late for the publication, but … Edit note:
“The surfaces with areas A and S are thermally insulated preventing heat from
entering into G and infrared radiation to reach space.” “…from reaching space.”
Don’t mix your gerunds and infinitives! 😉
SW;
Concerning the “interruption”, the Gedanken planetary ‘speriment I came up with was to start with the atmosphere without CO2, then instantaneously add the current 4% of 1%, well-mixed. Wait for the new temp to settle down, record the lag and and change, and then reverse. Instantaneously remove all CO2 and record the lag and results.
It wouldn’t capture all the needed info, but it would still be definitive, were it possible!
All good stuff and nice to see it spreading through the bloggosphere. we need more media champions like Booker and Dellingpole to spread the word among the great unwashed.
Warmists always talk about temperature, never gravity or molecular density, this leads to discussions of physics which terrifies warmists.
One temperature experiment I have so far failed to discover is the minimum temperature and humidity readings from any well documented desert region. My suspicion is that the minimums should be decreasing according to AGW predictions. Deserts are rarely covered by cloud and though aerosols might effect daytime temperature they should not effect night time minimums.
I lived and worked in a couple of desert regions and was much impressed by night time temperature drops. This was long before AGW became a public farce.
Roger A:
I think Hansen may need a reality check concerning sulfate aerosols. It has been shown that their cooling effect is highly localised, yet according to the CRU global temperature dataset, China has seen among the sharpest increases in temperature, whereas largely sulfate free places such as NZ have a nearly flat C20th temperature history since 1950 according to NIWA’s revised dataset published since the abrupt departure of Phil ‘little chinese UHI’ Jones’ protege Jim Salinger.
Shome mishtake shurely?
Oh, silly me! I just remembered Antarctica is a desert region. Problem is no one pays attention to minimum temperatures there, only to anomalies based on maximum readings from temperatures recorded many hundreds of miles away. 😦
Thank you, tallbloke, for getting the permission for putting this very interesting paper up.
The N&Z 2011 paper is now becoming much clearer to me (not being a physicist …!).
What I find puzzling is that Hans Jelbring’s paper has made it through the Team’s gate-keeping ‘peer’ review, in 2003. I wonder what hoops he had to jump through to get it into print.
Am now looking forward to the debate here!
Colliemum: Hans published in ‘Energy and Environment’ which is a journal not susceptible to ‘Team’ armtwisting. The redoubtable Sonja Christensen brooks no nonsense. Because the ‘Team’ can’t influence it, they instead smear it.
Hans Jelbring wrote:
The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons.
The underlying logic may be found in Theory of Heat. In the 10th edition, it is on page 330, starting with “The second result” (a unique phrase in the text), and continuing to the middle of page 331.
Read it, and form your own conclusions.
@ tallbloke, January 2, 2012 at 10:22 am:
Thanks – that explains it.
The attitude of The Team to both journal and editor are nicely documented in CG1 and 2, including their ‘not-citing-from-this-journal’ strategy.
TB:
“I think Hansen may need a reality check”. Well, no argument there, but to him AGW is a demonstrated fact, so he sees absolutely nothing wrong with tweaking any data that don’t match AGW theory until they do. And by tweaking the forcings rather than the temperature records he can explain not only the the lack of warming but also Trenberth’s “missing heat”, which according to his forcing estimates was never there to begin with. And as for regional temperature trends not matching the sulfate distributions, well they never have, so why should he worry about it now?
Now back to the subject of this thread. It’s said that the only dumb question is the one that doesn’t get asked, so here are some dumb questions. According to Jelbring “The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary (greenhouse effect) depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.” What’s the non-bulk part? CO2? And are the “mass density” and “greenhouse gas” mechanisms in fact mutually exclusive? Why can’t they both operate at the same time?
Hi Roger A:
Hopefully hans will give you his opinion on the answers to those questions.
Mine would be that since back radiation can’t heat the ocean, and the ocean and the water vapour rising from it are responsible for almost all the pressure driven ‘GHE’ given that the thermal capacity of non=condensing GHG’s in the atmosphere is so small, the additional effect due to them will be equivalent to a fart in a hurricane. So no, not mutually exclusive, but the radiative GHE is at best a second order effect, albeit a necessary one for the support of the lapse rate.
“Why can’t they both operate at the same time?”
They do. But as N & Z say (and I agree) the radiative component gets expelled by negative system responses such as more evaporation and convection.
Here is my latest attempt at explaining it:
Nikolov and Zeller suggest that there is no back radiation, just the temperature of the air above the surface. I agree and this is why.
We do not need the non condensing GHGs at all in order to set the surface temperature of the atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure dictates the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation so it is atmospheric pressure that dictates the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. The more it costs in terms of energy to achieve evaporation the warmer the oceans must become before equilibrium is reached.
So the oceans will build up to whatever temperature is permitted by atmospheric pressure with or without any non condensing GHGs in the air at all.
Once that ocean temperature is achieved the energy for the baseline temperature of the air above the surface is then supplied to the air by energy leaving the oceans and NOT by energy coming in from the sun and especially NOT by energy flowing down from above as so called back radiation.
So the upshot is that the oceans accumulate solar energy until they radiate 390 at current atmospheric pressure, at that point 170 continues to be added by solar but to balance the budget the atmosphere by virtue of its density retains whatever energy is required to achieve balance.
A feature of non condensing GHGs is that they add to the energy content of the air proportionately more than other gases in the atmosphere but in the end it is surface pressure that controls the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation which is the ultimate arbiter of what rate of energy transfer can be achieved from oceans to air.
So if non condensing GHGs add a surplus over and above that required by surface pressure for equilibrium then the system has to make an adjustment but what it cannot do is alter the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation in the absence of any change in atmospheric mass or pressure. So instead it is the rate of evaporation that must change to balance the budget in the absence of a significant change in surface pressure. Thus a change in the size or speed of the water cycle removes in latent form any excess energy produced as a result of non condensing GHGs.
There is no back radiation, merely a temperature for the atmosphere just above the surface and it is wholly pressure dependent. That temperature is a consequence not of downward atmospheric scattering of outgoing longwave but simply a consequence of atmospheric density slowing down energy loss first from sea to air and then by separate mechanisms from the air above the sea surface to space.
So if one increases atmospheric pressure at the surface the amount of energy required to provoke evaporation at the sea surface rises and the equilibrium temperature of the whole system rises including the temperature of the air above the surface.
The opposite if one decreases atmospheric pressure at the surface.
We have been looking at back radiation from the wrong point of view. There is no such thing. What we see is simply the air temperature near the surface and it is pressure dependent and not non condensing GHG dependent.
Richard111,
Your experiment is similar to one I had postulated to myself recently. Under desert skies of constant humidity, pressure & wind-speed, how much would CO2 concentration be expected to affect not the temperatures, but the RATE of cooling after sunset (from a given temperature) at single locations. Ideally, of course, this would also be constrained by controlling for the length of day etc. If you know of any temperature station data that is available as a continuous stream [not just twice a day] I’d be very interested.
“There is no back radiation”
I think there is back radiation, but it’s not thermally effective for the reasons you describe, plus my work on the inability of baack radiattion to affect ocean heat content. You need to be careful with statements like that, as the warmies will try to have you summarily dismissed for being a ‘radiative physics denier’.
colliemum:
At January 2, 2012 at 10:04 am you asked;
“What I find puzzling is that Hans Jelbring’s paper has made it through the Team’s gate-keeping ‘peer’ review, in 2003. I wonder what hoops he had to jump through to get it into print.”
And tallbloke replied at January 2, 2012 at 10:22 am saying;
“Colliemum: Hans published in ‘Energy and Environment’ which is a journal not susceptible to ‘Team’ armtwisting. The redoubtable Sonja Christensen brooks no nonsense. Because the ‘Team’ can’t influence it, they instead smear it.”
Actually, the name of the redoubtable lady is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. When the history of the AGW-scare is written she will be seen by all as a great hero. Her courage, honesty and integrity have enabled her to survive attacks on her from the Team that included them attempting to get her sacked from her post at Hull University because E&E opublished a paper they did not like. Hence, Energy and Environment (E&E) has been – and is – a beacon of light throughout the darkness of the scare. It alone has continued to publish peer-reviewed papers which support and which challenge the so-called science of the AGW-scare.
Sonja wants to retire but finding an appropriate unbiased replacement as Editor for E&E is proving very difficult. Few academics have her integrity and fortitude.
I was a peer-reviewer for Jelbring’s 2003 paper. I did not know – and I still do not know – if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong. But I recommended its publication in E&E because Jelbring’s paper convinced me that his hypothesis deserved wide and proper evaluation: in my opinion, it still does.
Although I have withdrawn from contributing here, I thought it important to state the facts in this post.
Richard
P.S. For propriety, I declare an interest in that I am a member of E&E’s Editorial Board.
Thanks Richard and apologies to Sonja for misremembering her name.
The adiabatic lapse rate is defined by the “gas Laws” not by gravity (other than of course high gravity gives high pressure!).
The adiabatic lapse rate requires that a fixed number of molecules be moved between pressure differences. Once at a new pressure the new temperature will stabilise to the surroundings (but that is not what adiabatic lapse rate is about).
However, for every molecule transported from high to low pressure there MUST be a molecule transported from low to high pressure. This means there is NO net flow of energy.
Where the atmosphere blends into a vacuum there can be no convective/conductive transfer of energy (there is nothing to transfer the energy to!)
Radiation is the only option. N2 H2 O2 etc. have little propensity to absorb and therefore to emit the required radiation. It has to be mainly from GHGs (CO2 H2O CH4 etc.)
At the other end of the air column you have similar problems. The ground/sea warms through absorption of the shorter wavelengths of TSI (where most of the solar energy is). The heat is radiated from the ground/sea as LWIR and by contact at the boundary between earth and atmosphere. The heat must be transferred from molecule to molecule by contact or by convection. A slow process. Conduction will be enhanced by high pressure, convection will be slowed.
The radiated energy is NOT significantly absorbed by O2 N2 H2 etc. no matter what the pressure. Even a solid glass fibre can be made extremely low loss 0.2dB per km and the molecules are pretty solidly packed http://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/wordpress/optical-fiber-loss-and-attenuation/ . Without a GHG this radiation would escape without attenuation straight to space. GHGs will “absorb” this LWIR at certain frequencies and re-emit it in all directions. The time for this energy to be “reabsorbed” in another molecule is dependent on the path length which is dependent on the proximity of other GHG molecules which is dependant on the pressure of the atmosphere.
The time taken for the radiation to bounce from molecule to molecule increases the time it takes for the energy to travel from ground to space.
The energy input to the system is at a constant rate. Slow down the output and the system gets hotter. A hotter system will radiate more energy (BB radiation).
Where does the energy from static pressure difference come in to this?
The sea IS warmed by back radiation.
The LWIR does not penetrate to any degree but conduction heats the top few mm see a simple experipent on my web page that measures this.
The sea is not static but continually churning redistributing the heat over the top few metres of water. Also look at any profile for sea water temperatures.
sed: T = P/ ρ • M/R
Venus Earth Mars
——– ——– ——–
P – pressure 9220000 101325 605 N/m2 (Pa)
ρ – density 65 1.217 0.015 kg/m3
M – molar mass 0.0434 0.02897 0.04334 kg/mol
R – gas constant 8.31451 8.31451 8.31451 J/K/mol
——– ——– ——–
T – temperature 740.40 290.09 210.24 K
A couple of years ago I read a article stating that Earth had a rouglhy 10% denser atmosphere during the Permian Period than it does now , which helped make it warmer despite a slightly less luminous sun. . From that article I thought I could apply the PV =nrT law to get the additional greenhouse effect from an Earth with a denser atmosphere, and Venus’s; surface temperature,. I quickly found a snag in my reasoning,
M, and R are determined constants, P is an input for an atmospher of a given density, but RHO is not determined by initial conditions,
If P is 10% larger and Rho is ALSO 10% larger, you get the same temperature as before.
Venus has a P of roughly 90. What determines Rho? If Rho was 130, Venus would have
a temperature of 370 K.
I suspect that Nikolov is messing around with an identity. .I don’t think his formula tells us how to calculate rho with a given atmospheric composition and density, and a given solar flux.
What would the surface temperature of a planet with a venus type atmosphere at 1/10 the Venus pressure, on a planet 10% more massive than earth, , at the distance of Mars, with a star having 90% the flux of our sun be? Once you have rho you can compute the other figures, and they will match the above calculations- but rho will depend on the stellar flux reaching the surface and on the greenhouse effect of the given atmosphere.
@ Stephen: very good essay indeed sir!
Now a small bit to add about that .3mm skin on the heaving bosom of the sea. Air velocities over the water thin the grip of surface tension. My research for fume scrubbers indicated 4000 ft per minute was the point where scrubbing action improved markedly. Wind will change the ability of sea energy to escape the grip of liquid to vapor, so a storm will lower the effective surface pressure. pg
A couple of additional comments. First
compares average absolute surface air temperatures measured at several hundred surface stations in 2000 (my data) against CMIP3 20c3m/sresa1b multi-model mean surface temperatures in 2000 (data from KNMI). The climate models replicate observed temperatures at all latitudes very closely, which prompts another dumb question. If the Unified theory is correct, would we expect the current generation of climate models to come this close?
Second. TB, as you say, there are numerous uncertainties related to the impact of sulfate aerosols on climate – so many in fact that I’m going to say we should ignore them altogether. There are also numerous uncertainties related to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, so I’m going to assume that it’s only on the order of a few years, meaning that we only have to consider transient climate sensitivity. I’m also going to assume that about half of the warming since 1900 is anthropogenic. Now I can compute a transient climate sensitivity based on the GISS forcing estimates. It works out to about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2. Not quite low enough to qualify as flatulence in a force12, but getting there. 🙂
Post updated with a PREFACE written by Hans Jelbring today. My further thanks to him for his input. Given the possible problems Nokilov and Zeller’s theory may have with calculating the S-B law based emanation of energy from Earth’s surface taking into account axial rotation and obliquity relative to the point source Sun, Hans decision to use a simplified model makes more sense to me than before. Look out for a new post on that issue coming up soon.
New post is up now:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/robert-brown-what-we-dont-know-about-energy-flow/
This is highly relevant to both Nikolov and Zeller’s and to Hans Jelbring’s papers. Please wade through it.
[…] Comments tallbloke on Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse …Shub Niggurath on NYT article on climategate: En…J Martin on Suggestionstallbloke on Hans […]
Roger andrews says:
” According to Jelbring “The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary (greenhouse effect) depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.” What’s the non-bulk part? CO2? And are the “mass density” and “greenhouse gas” mechanisms in fact mutually exclusive? Why can’t they both operate at the same time?”
I am afraid this will be quite a long answer.
Your “dumb” questions are all very relevant. To take the easy one first which is your last one. They are not mutually exclusive. Water vapor affect regional GE substantially. I doubt that the impact of carbon dioxide can be measured at all. More on that later.
What is bulk part of GE? I agree to using the concept somewhat loose. First define global GE as the diffeence between the average surface temperature and the observed averge temperature of earth seen from space.. Such a definition is based on observations and averaging over surface and time. It follows that GE is around 33 C (approximately). If the atmosphere of earth would be contained in a shell the the STATIC GE would be -9.8 C/km but the real one is about -6.5C/km. Obviously the real lapse rate is differing from the model lapse rate by -34%. On Venus the model lapse rate is almost similar to the observed lapse rate. On Mars there is hardly any GE at all. GE is approximately zero. It is obvious that direct IR emission to space will lower GE. We have identified one physical process that affect the real GE in relation to the model GE (which is an upper limit value). A thin atmosphere will do so. There are several other physical processe around and here is a qualititive reasoning.
There exist a data bank where it is possible to find monthly regional OLW (Outgoing Longwave Radiation W/m^2) values, surface temperatue values and tropopause values of pressure and temperature. This makes it possible to define a monthly regional GE over any fairly large region on earth in the same way as the global GE was defined. It turns out that regional GE values are functions of, regional solar irradiaton, regional cloud cover, regional moisture, hight above sea level etc. Regional GE is also affected by the dominent vertical wind direction (subsiding or ascending). An extreme GE is found on the polar Antarctica where GE is around 0 C because of sustained susidence that promote inversions and high elevation (thin atmosphere). The highest regional GE is found in humid equatorial regions where GE can reach 50C or more. Observe that integrating all regional GE will hopefully result in an average GE around 33C and that is likely to occur according to my calculations.
The imnportant part of this is that a number of physical factiors can be shown to produce large variations in the measured regional GE (from 0 to 55 C) on earth. Several physical system can directly be identified as causing the regional GE variations. At the same time the carbon dioxide is approximately constant all over the world (during for exampel a specific year). Hence there is little reason to believe that CO2 produce any GE effect and very good reasons to state that vater vapour is one potent agent among a number of agents that can affect the global GE of 33C. Still, most of these 33C can be judged to be promoted by gravity affecting the atmosphere. This is the reason why I used the term the bulk GE. My meaning was the dominant part of the observed GE is caused by the gravity impact on our atmosphere. There are a number of regioanal physical reason why these 33 C is regioanally modulated.
Hopefully this is understandable and answered your questions. Be aware that defining GE as what is caused by carbon dioxide radiation is just fraudulent to state. It is a circular reductionistic reasoning. GE could as well be defined to be the impact of high elevation, polar regions or cloud cover.
There is very little mention of the fact that the heat capacity of a gas(CP) contains a lot of thermodynamics.
Many treat it as a constant and leave it at that but that is an gross oversimplification.
For instance the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate is given as
= -g/Cp
Yet a moments consideration will tell you that the air contains CO2 with all its radiative properties.
These radiative properties are included in the bulk quantity Cp
If we examine how Cp changes with temperature for two different gases the point will become clearer.
A range of 250K to 350K will cover most atmospheric situations.
For Nitrogen (N2) the values vary by 0.2% i.e. almost constant
For CO2 the values vary by 13.1%
Why does CO2 change so much?
Because other degrees of freedom besides translational become possible for CO2 as the temperature changes.
Point being that if accurate values of Cp are used as the temperature changes then all the radiative effect are included!
IPCC advocates on the other hand want to deal separately with radiation forgetting that it has alreadybeen included in Cp.
This leads to double counting and the absurd greenhouse effect.
Hans:
Thank you for your detailed reply. I think I get the gist of what you’re saying, but to clarify things further I was wondering if you could answer another question for me. What would the earth’s surface temperature be if the atmosphere was 100% CO2? (Not that there would be anyone around to measure it, of course.)
Hans,
welcome to the talkshop and thank you for joining the discussion at an early stage.
Bryan,
I think I may have spotted another way in which radiation is being double counted too. Trenberth seems to regard all the long wave radiation heading downwards from the atmosphere as back radiation which originally left the surface. But surely a fairly large component of that downwelling long wave radiation is from short wave solar energy absorbed directly by the atmosphere and re-emitted as long wave.
Or have I misunderstood the Keihl-Trenberth energy budget diagram?
Roger A:
That’s a big ask!
Tallbloke says
“Trenberth seems to regard all the long wave radiation heading downwards from the atmosphere as back radiation which originally left the surface. ”
Yes he calls it backradiation even in his latest version of the energy budget diagram.
Another example of clumsy inappropriate language like ‘greenhouse’ effect.
ScienceofDoom and Judith Curry would agree with you and call it more appropriately downwelling long wave radiation because a lot of this energy has never originated from the Earths surface.
Re Roger Andrews question to Hans. Surely the answer is very nearly the same temperature as we have now. Difficult to assess if low altitude co2 raises temps and high level co2 lowers temps. On balance the same temperature as now ? My wild guess.
J Martin:
The answer, I guess, would indeed be very nearly the same if there’s no greenhouse gas warming. But according to the IPCC each doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature increase of 3C, and to to get from current levels of around 400ppm CO2 to 1,000,000 ppm CO2 we have to double CO2 about eleven times, so we should get 33C of warming, all other things being equal.
Roger Andrews says:
January 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm
If we apply IPCC logic to Venus but in reverse, and assume that a halving of atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature decrease of 3C, we wind up with a planet with 400ppm CO2 and a surface temperature of 430C.
Still an awful lot of “excess heat” to explain away…. (:-
Whoops! Posted this in the wrong thread in all the excitement yesterday – apologies to Hans.
Mr. Jelbring:”Hence, it is possible to calculate the temperature difference (GE) between the surfaces with areas A and S in our three thought experiments. The solution is identical in all three experiments and its value is simply Dg/cp.”
I am quite confused by the relationship you describe here.
It seems that you are describing a situation where GE(on Earth a temperature difference of ~33 deg. K) is equal to the Density of the atmosphere times the lapse rate (the specific gravity divided by the specific heat of the air). Is this relationship accurate IYO and if so, how? The units do not even match on both sides of the equation.
If that is not the correct relationship, for my benefit, can you please restate how one would calculate the GE under your framework?
Cheers, 🙂
Q. Daniels says:
“January 2, 2012 at 10:22 am
The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons.
The underlying logic may be found in Theory of Heat. In the 10th edition, it is on page 330, starting with “The second result” (a unique phrase in the text), and continuing to the middle of page 331.
Read it, and form your own conclusions”
My deepest thanks for this reference although I had some troubles to get it. I have professional knowledge relating to Maxwells equations and consider them to be the most accurate and most important model that has ever been produced. However I had no idea that he had written about heat.
Chapter XXIL “On the molecular theory of the constitution of the of bodies” is just a pleasure to read.
You are hitting the nail when directing me to the pages 229-331. My E&E article contradicts his statements that gravity wouldn´t have any influence on temperature in a high insulated tower and he is wrong in that statment. He is also contradicting himself when he is adressing the results of the concept of “Convective equilibrium of heat” that is manifested by a “….constant quantity Fi which determines the adiabatic curve”
Maxwell: Page 331 “The extreme slowness of the conduction of heat in air, compared with the rapidity with which large masses of air are carried from one height to another by the winds, causes the temperature of different strata of the atmosphere to depend far more on this condition of convective equilibrium than on true thermal equilibrium.”
The “dynamic” dry adiabic temperature lapse rate proven to be -g/Cp (by for example Holton) is identical to the one proven to exist in a high STATIC energetically chamber of gas where gravity has a quantitative measurable impact (my article). Maxwell misses that 1:st and 2:nd law of thermodynamicds deals with energy in the first place and not with temperature. They are not equivalent in all physical systems. This can be clarfied better but it is enough for this time.
Thanks again
[ Theory of Heat, 10th edition, 1902
Author: Maxwell, James Clerk, 1831-1879; Rayleigh, John William Strutt, Baron, 1842-1919
PDF of scan on WordPress servers (26MB) (please use this link for download)
Text versions are in the archive.org library here
— Tim co-mod]
This is the first time I have read Maxwell and I can’t say I ever mastered his very important equations concerning electromagnetic fields. But I think his comments concerning thermal equilibrium of a gaseous column in a gravitational field was not completely thought out. As far as I know, he did not provide a proof of any kind except by a reliance on the 2nd law. But he did acknowledge that the temperature profile of the atmosphere would follow a constant “potential temperature” profile rather than a constant “temperature” profile. He indicated that this difference was due to the constant motion of the atmosphere. If the free energy of a system will spontaneously lead to a higher or no change in entropy, then I don’t see how you can differentiate between the static system and the dynamic one. If you describe the system by the equation dU = CpdT +gdz, if dU= 0 then the Helmholtz free energy of the process would be equal to zero (spontaneous). If T remained constant with an increase in z (isothermal) then dU > 0 and the Helmholtz free energy would be positive and work would have to be done on the system for the process to occur. But, hey, I’m no Maxwell!
Maxwell’s hypothesis about an isothermal column in a gravitational field did not go unchallenged. In fact his teacher, Loschmidt, challenged him on this very hypothesis. But Boltzmann concurred with Maxwell. You can read about the controversy and recent experimental work on the hypothesis here:
Click to access descript%20372_dec6.pdf
http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/temperaturedifference.phtml
Link to Google books
[Challenges to the second law of thermodynamics: theory and experiment
By Vladislav Čápek, Daniel Peter Sheehan, page 202 — Tim]
Bill Gilbert
“The “dynamic” dry adiabic temperature lapse rate proven to be -g/Cp (by for example Holton) is identical to the one proven to exist in a high STATIC energetically chamber of gas where gravity has a quantitative measurable impact (my article). Maxwell misses that.”
Hmm, an error of omission in Maxwell’s work. I sense a seismic shift starting to rumble beneath the underpinnings of fluid dynamics and atmospheric science. Well done!
William, welcome to the talkshop, and thank you very much for your comment. This is just the sort of thing which catches my attention as a historian of science. Looking at the ways in which minor errors by great figures who had success in other aspects of their work remain, and seeing how those errors propagate and compound down the years to have fundamentally important knock-on consequences.
Apologies for not spotting and approving your comment more quickly, you can post freely from now on.
Just over an hour Rog, relax. Some delay is necessary otherwise excess troll activity will appear which I think is understood by users. (I’d left 6 comments for you as uncertain)
Note on Maxwell.
There is uncertainty over the formula and math ascribed. I knew there was a linkage with Heaviside so I dug slightly and is a starting point for others. It appears this is a tale.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
If this is true and given circumstances, perhaps someone with adequate maths knowledge needs to look at the early publications.
None of you smart guys answered JT’s question, so I’ll give a layman’s guess and maybe trigger a response by someone feeling the need to expel the resultant bad karma.
Yes, in a gravitational field a vertical gas column allowed to reach equilibrium will in the absence of energy exchanges with the environment exhibit a vertical pressure gradient but no temperature gradient: the temperature will be uniform. In other words the equipartition of ideal-gas energy among potential energy and the x-, y-, and z-velocity components of kinetic energy applies to the gas as a whole, not to individual molecules: greater-potential-energy molecules will not tend to have less kinetic energy than molecules whose potential energy is lower. But heating at the column’s bottom conspires with the gas’s poor heat conduction to cause departures from equilibrium in such a manner as to drive convection that imposes the lapse rate, i.e., a vertical temperature gradient.
Incidentally, Jelbring’s paper left me with the same question, so, if you care additionally to reach us unwashed masses, you may want to connect the dots like this.
[Reply] Joe, check the new thread on Loschmidt. the ideal place for that discussion. – Rog
[…] Comments Joe Born on Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse …Richard111 on Nice work if you can get it: 2…tchannon on Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse […]
Joe Born says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm
A. (Yes, in a gravitational field a vertical gas column allowed to reach equilibrium will in the absence of energy exchanges with the environment exhibit a vertical pressure gradient but no temperature gradient: the temperature will be uniform.)
B. (In other words the equipartition of ideal-gas energy among potential energy and the x-, y-, and z-velocity components of kinetic energy applies to the gas as a whole, not to individual molecules) C. (But heating at the column’s bottom conspires with the gas’s poor heat conduction to cause departures from equilibrium in such a manner as to drive convection that imposes the lapse rate, i.e., a vertical temperature gradient.)
Thanks for formulating well structured statements and opinions that should be posible to answer in a satifactory way. Curisosity is for sure a human virtue. Be patient with me about my grammar and spelling since English is a foreign language hard to conquer. A, B and C will be commented.
A. This is an unproven statment which the unwashed masses seem to share share with a genius named Maxwell. (se references to “The theory of Heat” in former mails)
B. I agree that it is beneficial to treat a relatively small number of molecules and avoid treating singular ones, let´s settle for about a billion in a package. In real life z-velocity components are affected by gravity.
C. This is a statement where the logic is incomplete probably because of lack of knowlege. Hence, it is wrong for a number of reasons.
Your major misunderstanding is that (a dry) adiabatic temperature lapse rate -g/Cp (dynamic or static) does constitute the ENERGY EQUILIBRIUM STATE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. The atmosphere is ALWAYS seeking this energetic condition (2nd law of thermodynamics) realising that gravity is involved in thermodynamics. Maxwell and you share the same misunderstanding. Energy and temperature are not always proportional and exchangable in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The heating at the bottom (ground in this case caused mostly by sunshine) makes sure that the lower troposphere can reach an almost adiabatic temperature lapse rate every afternoon when the sun has been shining during the day. “Heat conduction” is a semantic bomb in English but I think you use it for a gas that is not moving which I do too. I agree on “poor heat conduction”. This concept has very little to do with the production of the “dynamic” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate -g/Cp which to 99% depend on advection (horizontal and vertical energy transport by wind) (See Holton´s derivation of -g/Cp in “An introduction to Dynamic Meteorology”.
Well, you did trigged a response from “a smart guy”. Hopefully it is correct and to help.
Hans,
Thanks a lot. I will attempt to restate your response.
First, you do not agree that an isolated vertical column of air in a gravitational field will ultimately reach a uniform temperature. Your explanation is one that I once had given myself: molecules lose z-component velocity as they travel upwards, so at equilibrium higher molecules have less translaltional kinetic energy–i.e., the air is colder at higher altitudes.
I digress at this point to mention that folks at Science of Doom who apparently knew this stuff better than I did gave me to believe (http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/16/convection-venus-thought-experiments-and-tall-rooms-full-of-gas/) that this theory (i.e., yours) was not the better-reasoned one. I confess, though, that I was never able to explain to myself from a microscopic viewpoint my previous post’s uniform-temperature theory by, e.g., demonstrating that because of the pressure gradient a molecule is more likely to be imparted upward momentum by a molecule below it than downward momentum by a molecule above it Still, I found the equipartitioning-of-energy-among-modes explanation beguiling.
In any event, back to your response. Although I’m not positive that I understand what you meant when you said that low thermal conductivity doesn’t have much to do with lapse rate, I don’t think this is an important point, and perhaps my mentioning it was ill-considered. All I meant was that thermal conductivity is low enough not to eliminate the local temperature variations that give rise to density variations and thus convection.
Joe,
I just posted a comment at the Loschmidt thread which may cover some of your questions.
The Science of Doom thread that you mentioned was the third in a series on the reasons for the high surface temperature on Venus. The second installment was, in my opinion, the better of the three and was more supportive of the Jelbring and Nikolov hypotheses. (http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/). I participated in that discussion (williamcg). If you get a chance to read it I would be very interested in your opinions.
Joe Born says:
January 4, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Thanks Bill for helping to explain. Your chemical approach in a former comment seems very elegant but I guess some more explanations are needed. I will treat some more aspects mentioned by Joe not to lose focus on what my E&E article does say and what it does not say.
“First, you do not agree that an isolated vertical column of air in a gravitational field will ultimately reach a uniform temperature. Your explanation is one that I once had given myself: molecules lose z-component velocity as they travel upwards, so at equilibrium higher molecules have less translaltional kinetic energy–i.e., the air is colder at higher altitudes.”
I agree to your first sentence. My mentioning of the z-component was just to make you realize that a symmetric solution to the kinetic energy density situation in an isolated vertical tower cannot be correct since the impact of gravity is real in our universe. This is an argument that Maxwell did not consider or did not take seriously and I just mentioned it for you to consider.
My explanation is given in my E&E paper and I will try to better clarify what it contains. It does deal with the physical macro situation. There is no need to approach this problem from the micro perspective as you tend to do. This is in now wrong though.
Imagine that you closed the insulating shell around earth at an arbitrary time. According to 1st law of thermodynics the quantity of energy contained within the shell is constant. At the closing all types of energy exists. After a month all winds have for sure seized. If there are any temperature inversions left they will also seize within time. The last processes will probably be diffusion and conduction on the way towards ENERGY equilibrium. At that time no wind can be traced anywhere.
Why is this happening? According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the initial constant energy content, although spatially variable, will have to dissipate spontaneously meaning that an equal amount of energy has to be carried physically by any equal mass of the atmospehere that was inclosed. This situation has to develope spontaneously within time according to the second law of thermodynamics. Another way to express this is: Any equal macro mass m0 (a billion molecules) has to contain an equal amount of energy regardless of where it is situated. Since the geopotential for m0 increase as a function of altitude other forms of energy in m0 has to decrease. These other forms can by expressed in terms of temperature alone. Hence temperature has to decrease as a function of altitude. This is a qualitative argument based on the macro situation, not from micro considerations.
But here is the clue which explains a lot of existing confusion. The second law of thermodynics states a truth about energy distribution but not about temperatury distribution as a function of time in this case (within the inclosed atmosphere). Many scientists have interpreted the 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of temperature which restricts its validity in physical systems. This is also the central cause of the controversity between Loschmidt and Maxell that I just learnt about some days ago (as far as I can see).
Hans Jelbring
Messrs. Jelbring and Gilbert:
Many thanks for your excellent responses. Not only have they helped me substantively but they’ve enabled me to take some comfort from the fact that in my error, if that’s what it is, I have distinguished company (Maxwell). Although I’m not completely certain I now know the answer, I found this argument the most compelling: “Any equal macro mass m0 (a billion molecules) has to contain an equal amount of energy regardless of where it is situated.”
Again, many thanks for your help.
[…] Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass […]
[…] why Hans Jelbring used a simplified model for his paper, please see the new PREFACE added to his post for further […]
Steve Goddard had a nice piece at WUWT (May 2010) on how high Venusian temperatures are caused by atmospheric pressure, not greenhouse effects (as the alarmists claim):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
Alec Rawls says:
“January 7, 2012 at 2:02 am
Steve Goddard had a nice piece at WUWT (May 2010) on how high Venusian temperatures are caused by atmospheric pressure, not greenhouse effects (as the alarmists claim):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/”
Many thanks Alec!
A very good article which got a lot of attention hopefully beause it is based on strict scientific reasoning (skip the pot though). The +400 comments should be a treasure for a sociologist figuring out how to communicate scientific knowledge to people. I found many gems and picked two. The first one is observational evidence supporting theory. The second one is a comment to the the idiotic tax on farting cows in New Zealand or how bad corrupt science can influence our societies.
May 6, 2010 at 3:00 pm timheyes
“Ever hiked down the Grand Canyon? Same weather, same sunshine, similar rocks, same everything – except temperatures at the bottom are much warmer.
Hot gases rise only if the vertical temperature gradient is greater than the lapse rate.”
Enneagram says: May 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“Wait! Has anybody seen if there on Venus cows live?….you know, all that cow farting can provoke such an elevated temperature. Gotto send some texan cowboys up there!
EPA should issue a ban on all venusian gases!. Big business ahead for Cap&Trade.”
Good find Hans:
“Hot gases rise only if the vertical temperature gradient is greater than the lapse rate.”
This raises a question of where is the warmest place to go if you want to beat the cold on a cool night. Should you go to the bottom of a valley, where the atmospheric pressure is greatest, or should you try to get up a bit, leaving room for the coldest air to settle below.
I recall that esteemed authority Bear Grylls saying on one of his survival expeditions to Alaska, that primitive natives would encamp well up from the valley floor to avoid the cold, and my mountain biking experience certainly bears out some such effect.
I usually head out a 5 or 7 mile east-side-of-the-mountain climb when the sun is just going behind the hill to the west. (Santa Cruz Mountains, riding up to Skyline from Portola Valley.) I don’t really feel any temperature change going up. It must be getting colder, but I’m getting warmer, and when I get to the top, the peak still has sun on it and the air can still be balmy. The shaded air below, however, is cooling rapidly, and on the way down it gets colder and colder, sometimes in the winter getting all the way down into the 30’s at the bottom when it was tee shirt weather on top.
The whole east side of the hills go into shade at approximately the same time, so it isn’t that the bottom has been losing radiant heat for longer than the top. For the air to get colder and colder as I go do down, the colder air has to be migrating down, and that makes sense in a valley. The east side of the valley, where the hillsides face west, is lit much longer, so one would expect a u-shaped displacement effect of cool air from the west side of the valley dropping down, pushing up the air on the still lit side.
If the west side of the valley gets an extra 2 hours of light, that’s a big difference that could make for a substantially colder lower level of air at the valley floor, enough it would seem to outweigh the lapse rate. What about overnight? Will this situation persist overnight? Will the valley floor remain significantly colder than up the hillsides? How high up is warmest? Grylls was up pretty high when he made his claims about native wisdom, looking way down on a valley below. That can’t be right. But what is right?
Here’s an interesting tidbit. NOAA on the phenomenon of a mid-slope “thermal belt,” using Albuquerque New Mexico as an example:
Am I right about the source of the relatively cold air? Is it because the west side of mountains and the east side of a valleys get a couple more hours of sunlight than the other sides?
Alec Rawls says:
January 8, 2012 at 3:01 am
“Hot gases rise only if the vertical temperature gradient is greater than the lapse rate.”
Your observations are for sure correct. There are similar survival advice for people who get lost in the Swedish mountains up north during winter when there is snow (and very few hours of sunshine). Let´s say that you are in a valley and it is -30C and you have to stay outside overnight. The main advice is to build yourself a primitive igloo of snow if there is any and wait for morning to return. The second advice is to walk uphill 100-300m to reach a warmer area before building the igloo if the weather is calm. You can often expect to find to find a place 10c warmer uphill. I have experienced a 15C temperature decrease when going downhill a couple of hundreds meters by car.
The reason why it works is that IR radiation is leaving the snowy area at an approximately equal rate
everywhere but the cold air is gently flowing downhill along the surface since cold air is heavier than warm air. The downslop moving air is replaced by air from higher elevations which are warmed aidabatically when dragged down. That air is warmed 9.8C/km when descending. The warmest place might well be found at the top of a small mountain. Sun plays a critical role and what you describe is a daily phenomenon in a calm weather situation. Solar irradiation will easily counteract the surface IR radiation loss.
This is an example of a physical process that modulates the development of a dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate close to the grund. In fact a temperature inversion has been created at the ground level. Consider the situation in Sahara. During day time the temperature lapse rate is close to exactly -9.8C/km and its reaces higher and higer until 5-6 PM. At sunset the IR radiation from the surface will start producing a cold layer of air that might not be very high but the temperature can easily be 30C lower during night than during midday. It is rather common that beduins light fires to warm themselves during nighttime.
By the way the first sentence might be ambigous. To clarify. At constant temperature in the air from surface to the 200m the air is stratified in a stable way. If the ground level air is warmer than the air above it is unstable and warm air will raise and create a dry adiabatic temperature from the ground level to an inveersion level. The latter will happen most (calm) days when the sun is shining. The gradient of the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is -9.8K/km and it divides stable and unstable air stratification. Hope this answered your questions.
Alec Rawls says:
January 8, 2012 at 3:01 am
“Hot gases rise only if the vertical temperature gradient is greater than the lapse rate.”
Your observations are for sure correct. There are similar survival advice for people who get lost in the Swedish mountains up north during winter when there is snow (and very few hours of sunshine). Let´s say that you are in a valley and it is -30C and you have to stay outside overnight. The main advice is to build yourself a primitive igloo of snow if there is any and wait for morning to return. The second advice is to walk uphill 100-300m to reach a warmer area before building the igloo if the weather is calm. You can often expect to find to find a place 10c warmer uphill. I have experienced a 15C temperature decrease when going downhill a couple of hundreds meters by car.
The reason why it works is that IR radiation is leaving the snowy area at an approximately equal rate
everywhere but the cold air is gently flowing downhill along the surface since cold air is heavier than warm air. The downslop moving air is replaced by air from higher elevations which are warmed aidabatically when dragged down. That air is warmed 9.8C/km when descending. The warmest place might well be found at the top of a small mountain. Sun plays a critical role and what you describe is a daily phenomenon in a calm weather situation. Solar irradiation will easily counteract the surface IR radiation loss.
This is an example of a physical process that modulates the development of a dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate close to the grund. In fact a temperature inversion has been created at the ground level. Consider the situation in Sahara. During day time the temperature lapse rate is close to exactly -9.8C/km and its reaces higher and higer until 5-6 PM. At sunset the IR radiation from the surface will start producing a cold layer of air that might not be very high. The temperature can easily be 30C lower during night than during midday. It is rather common that beduins light fires to warm themselves during nighttime.
By the way the first sentence might be ambigous. To clarify. At constant temperature in the air from surface to the 200m the air is stratified in a stable way. If the ground level air is warmer than the air above it is unstable and warm air will rise and create a dry adiabatic temperature from the ground level to an inversion level. The latter will happen most (calm) days when the sun is shining. The gradient of the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is then clsoe to -9.8K/km and it divides stable and unstable air stratification. Hope this answered your questions.
[…] been efforts to calculate climate sensitivity from thermodynamic principals. Find the papers here, here, and here. These all suggest that the climate sensitivity is zero. Measurements from above the […]
Hans says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:02 am
“This is an example of a physical process that modulates the development of a dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate close to the grund.”
I get confused a couple of times in these threads by the loose use of the term adiabatic lapse rate when describing the temperature profile of the atmosphere. These are very different beasts imo.
Dry or wet adiabatic lapse rate is the rate of change of the temperature of a parcel of air when it moves up or down in the atmosphere, without exchanging heat with the surrounding atmosphere.
The temperature change of the atmosphere with increasing altitude is just that, a temperature profile, the term I feel should be used to avoid confusion.
Of course can the temperature profile of the atmosphere be the same as the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
This basically decides whether the atmosphere is stable or instable with regard to the formation of thermals.
The cold air during night time is an interesting thing. The temp. profile during day or night doesn’t change that much above a couple of hundred meters. The ground radiates away and cools, dragging the temp of the air above it also lower. Backradiation isn’t doing much here 😉
[
From…
Low level nocturnal jets http://twister.ou.edu/MM2005/Chapter2.3.pdf (880k), item replaces a reference Ben completely innocently gave to an infected web site.
Ben has extensive flying experience, hence he knows about this fascinating subject first hand.
If you use web search please do _not_ visit http://www.windwisdom.net which may appear at the top of a search, a site by an experienced balloonist, whom it appears is a victim of an attack.
[[ EDIT 22nd Jan, server sysop has confirmed Windwisdom was infected and has been cleaned. No knowledge of how it became infected (2008 –Tim). I have confirmed page edits and site is clean.
Clickable is now here http://www.windwisdom.net –Tim]]
These low level jets are particularly dangerous to balloonists, early morning launch in almost still air but 100m up they hit fast moving air. Occurs over cities too, good data out there for Moscow. Same for the African Sahel.
— Tim, co-moderator]
Ben Wouters
BenAW says:
January 8, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Hans says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:02 am
“This is an example of a physical process that modulates the development of a dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate close to the grund.”
—I get confused a couple of times in these threads by the loose use of the term adiabatic lapse rate when describing the temperature profile of the atmosphere. These are very different beasts imo.
Dry or wet adiabatic lapse rate is the rate of change of the temperature of a parcel of air when it moves up or down in the atmosphere, without exchanging heat with the surrounding atmosphere.
See here: [see post above — Tim]
Ben Wouters
There is nothing wrong in calling the observed temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere for temperature profile. Its is a semantic question but it easy to get confused when the terminology is poorly defined and where there are sevral concepts that ar (almost) equal. I would lke to discuss figure 4 in your reference and it would be nice to get it here but I cannot manage.To discuss what happens during a diurnal day will help a lot in understanding specific processes in the atmosphere. There are good reasons that IPCC seldom discuss this topic in detail.
The temperature profiles are observed A) 2:35 AM, B) 4:35 PM, C) 6:35 PM and D) 8:35 PM
Here is an interpretation of the how the profiles in figure 4 were created.
o The temperature profiles will repeat themselves every day if the weather is unchanging
o B and C will probably continue as straight lines up to at least 4000-6000 feet
o The temperature lapse rate is very close to -9.8K/km for B and C. They are very good approximations for the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate.
o The lower atmosphere has a minimum of energy around 1 hour before sunrise (see A)
o The sun starts warming the surface and the cold surface air gets warmed until the adiabatic temperature lapse rate has developed around 11 PM (similar to B but lower )
o The sun continues to shine and the temperarature profile (adiabatic) moves upward (B)
o B is overheated at the surface and the air there is instable and will soon raise (B)
o The sun continues to shine and the temperarature profile (adiabatic) moves upward (C)
but it is possible to see that IR emisssion from the surface stars cooling the surface.
o The cooling continuse (D)
o the cooling continues (A)
Observe that there solar irradiation and IR loss have two ways of functioning. It moves the whole temperature profile up and down and it modulates the profile close to ground (0-2300 feet).
Good luck with future interpretations.
Sorry Hans, have to disagree with you.
From Wikipedia;
Adiabatic process: an adiabatic process or an isocaloric process is a thermodynamic process in which the net heat transfer to or from the working fluid is zero.
Since the warming of the atmosphere is for a (large) part due to the suns heat, the temperature of the atmosphere isn’t arrived at adiabatically, so imo you can’t call a temperature profile adiabatic.
Even a parcel of warm air ascending in the atmosphere (thermal) will have some interaction with it’s surroundings, but these are probably negligable, so this process can be called adiabatic, and hence the term adiabatic lapse rate makes sense in this instance.
BenAW says:
January 9, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“Sorry Hans, have to disagree with you.
From Wikipedia
Adiabatic process: an adiabatic process or an isocaloric process is a thermodynamic process in which the net heat transfer to or from the working fluid is zero.”
Thanks for your viewpoints.
OK, let me explain to come around semantics and diffuse argumentation from my side. The definition of an adiabatic process in the atmosphere is to THEORETICALLYT treat an inclosed air parcel to which no radiative energy or thermal energy is aloud to enter or leave. However gravity is allowed to work on the inckosed mass.
With these constraints it can be shown (for example Holton) that the temperature has to be -g/Cp.
This might be called the “dynamic” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate. What I have shown, professor Gerlich has shown and also William Gilbert is that there exist a THEORETICAL “static” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate which is identical -g/Cp. William Gilbert found it being an easy task to realize that these two THEORETICAL laps rates are identical. I needed much thinking years ago but did prove it my way.
Now back to the real temperature profiles you referred to (figure 4). My effort was primarily meant to show you and other interested people that there is an energetic state in the atmosphere that is producing an approximate dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate during certain times during the day.
You provided observational evidence which is just fine. Observations always beat theory if diverging.
In a closed system, as time goes by, the energy content has to be shared very close to equal amonts in equal parts of mass (a billion molecules) acccording to the second law of thermodynamics.
In the real atmosphere there are always processes that disturb an energetic equilibrium and others that promote (the speed) that an equilibrium can be reached. Solar irradiation
is by far the processed that promoted the creations of an approximate (and vertically partial) adiabatic temperature lapse rate in our real atmosphere. Katabatic winds is another example but not so common one
As I see it the temperature profiles that “look like” dry adiabatic temperature lapse rates (in figure 4) verifies that molecular energy is seeking and succed in finding a constant total energy per mass unit in the column where the sounding was made. Hence, theory and observations meet each other, at least during some part in the atmosphere during sunny days.
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but since Hans discusses the GHE in his paper I’ll give it a go.
Why is the enormous heat capacity of the oceans hardly taken into account when looking at the earth’s climate?
Assuming radiative balance and no influence of the earth’s hot core.
(Incoming 0,7*1364 W/m^2/4 = 239 W/m^2, out also 239 W/m^2 on average)
See also http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
A large part of the oceans below the thermocline (90%) have a temperature of ~275K, which ever way they arrived at that temperature. This is already well above the 255K that is assumed as the earth’s blackbody temp. I disregard the continents for the moment since they are “only” 30% of earth’s surface.
See http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
The oceans surface temp is even more interesting, quoted as 290K on average. This seems enough to explain the assumed average surface temp of 288K.
Questions is, how do the oceans maintain their average 290K temp.
See http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/ocean_temp_big_jpg_image.html
Overriding impression in this image is the (very) high temps in the tropics and the colder arctic oceans.
Let’s give that a try: sun over equator, noon.
Incoming TSI 1364W/m^2, SB (Stefan-Boltmann) gives 394K
Same longitude 60N and S we still have halve that, 682 W/m^2, SB gives 331K.
Allowing for 30% reflectivity we have:
Equator 0,7 *1364 = 955K, SB gives 360K
60N and S 0,7 * 682 = 477 W/m^s, SB gives 303K
Since these temps are never reached, it seems reasonable to assume the “missing”energy is stored in the top layer of the oceans. See second link, the temp/depth diagram.
So what we have is a disk with radius 3600NM where the blackbody temp would be 303K at the edge, rising up to 360K in the centre, and the earth turning slowly under it.
Imo this goes a long way towards explaining the difference between the assumed blackbody temp and the average surface temp.
Ben Wouters
The radiative impacts of water droplets, fog, clouds, snow and ice crystals are
poorly modelled.
###########
along with this comments there are others throughout the ‘essay’ that are simply not supported by any reference.
It’s pretty simple guys. our atmosphere is relatively opaque to IR.
1. this is measured and matches theory.
2. it rests on the most fundamental physics we have
3. hundreds of engineered products that WORK depend on this theory
4. the defense of the free world ( thank you US forces) depend on this physics
The earth loses all energy back to space via radiation. Not conduction, not convection.
energy is returned from the surface, of course, by all three. But in the end, its all
radiation.
As the atmosphere gets more opaque to IR, the ‘effective” radiating height of the earth
increases. This means the earth will radiate from a higher colder temperature.
Radiation loss from a colder temperature entails a slower rate of energy loss, ie a warming at the surface.
basic radiation theory and energy balance.
Hi Mosh.
If Jelbring is correct, then the effect on temperature at the surface in consequence of a rise in co2 is negliigible.
Can you demonstrate that Hans Jelbring’s hypothesis is wrong?
Anyway, as I said the other day to you, it’s good to see the warmies have retreated into the stratosphere and seem to have stopped trying to scare people with tropical tropospheric hot-spots. This is progress. 😉
steven mosher says:
January 12, 2012 at 8:53 pm
“The earth loses all energy back to space via radiation. (CORRECT) Not conduction, not convection.
energy is returned from the surface, of course, by all three. But in the end, its all
radiation.”
Well, climate change existed before any humans were around and misinterpreted the causations of it..
Without convective energy transfer there would be little climate change in the troposphere (where we live). Radiation is more important in the tropopause and above than in the troposphere. The limit of the troposphere is defined as the coldest temperature in the atmosphere. That´s where the approximate adiabatic temperature lapse rate cannot be found any more. The physical processes in the troposphere (below 0.2 bar) is fundamentally different from what is above in the tropospause and above where radiative processes are dominating. Still thee are some convective processes at work sometime. Ever heard about Sudden stratospheric warming? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming for education.
tallbloke says:
January 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm
If Jelbring is correct, then the effect on temperature at the surface in consequence of a rise in co2 is negliigible.
I’d apppreciate some comments on my post above, showing that the earth has already a “base” temperature of 275K, so the first 20K of the assumed 33K GHE is already accounted for, greatly reducing the influence of any other effect on our surface temperature.
The reason for this “base” temp may very well be the effect of the hot core after a couple of billion years 😉
BenAW says:
January 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Questions is, how do the oceans maintain their average 290K temp.”
They do not maintain it. The Atlantic sea surface temperature west of Lisbon has changed between 1-20C 8 times between glacials and interglacials. Just now it is +15C. Your modelling is far from to treat this topic stating “so the first 20K of the assumed 33K GHE is already accounted for”.
The heat content of the oceans are for sure damping temperature variations on earth but the major problem is that noone knows why ice ages come and go, The 8 last ones were the most sever ones coming around every 100000 years. Before that there were about 20 “small2 ice ages repeting themself aboyt every 25000 year.
Hans says:
January 13, 2012 at 11:12 am
“Question is, how do the oceans maintain their average 290K temp.”
They do not maintain it.
OK, in the long run there are allways changes, but you’re talking surface temps.
My point is about the bulk of the oceans (and the continents probably as well, since the temp. afaik is rising when you drill deep).
It makes a huge difference if the earth has a “base” temp. (from it’s hot core,and not from the sun)
Calculating the avg. temp for a greybody sphere seems to go like:
0,7 * 1364/2 = 477 W/m^2 SB > 303K
(averaging the temps for the different lattitudes would be better)
Other halve lets say 3K (backgroundradiation).
Avg. temp for the sphere: 153K
If the “dark” side has a base temp of 275K the avg is very different: 289K
I’m disregarding the problem of calculating the greybody temp of a body that already has a temperature.
BenAW says:
January 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“OK, in the long run there are allways changes, but you’re talking surface temps.
My point is about the bulk of the oceans (and the continents probably as well, since the temp. afaik is rising when you drill deep).
It makes a huge difference if the earth has a “base” temp. (from it’s hot core,and not from the sun)
Calculating the avg. temp for a greybody sphere seems to go like:
0,7 * 1364/2 = 477 W/m^2 SB > 303K
(averaging the temps for the different lattitudes would be better)
Other halve lets say 3K (backgroundradiation).
Avg. temp for the sphere: 153K”
My model atmosphere only proves the evoltion of a temperature gradient -g/Cp in the “static” atmosphere. It does not say anything about the absolute temperature. On the contrary I am telling that the result is independant of the absolute temperature within the model atmosphere.
NASA (and Phil Jones) are calculating the “blackbody temperature” of earth assuming an energy balance and relying on temperature observations of the average surface of earth as 388 (+15C).
Google “Earth fact sheet or Venus fact sheet”
sigma x T(average)^4 = 1364×0.7/4 and it follows T(average) = 255 K.
The commonly accepted “greenhouse effect” is then 288-255 = 33 K.
The factor 2 that you missed is because the area of earth is 4piR and the sun is shining on a surface of pi x R (projection of half the globe). It is correct that NASA could use a better model to calculate the “greybody temperature of earth that include latitudinal differences but it is not that essential. Hope this is clarifying the situation for you.
Hans says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I’m aware of the calculations you supply. The one I gave is the simple version of the one Nikolov and Zeller use.
I’m arguing that we may have a 600 pound gorilla in the room, that nobody seems to notice.
The earth has a hot core, and although the crust is a very good insulator, it seems to have a temp. of around 275K, since that is the temp for about 90% of the oceans.
I’m basically introducing a second heat source into the equation.
If I’m correct, then every effect, be it your Atmospheric Mass effect, the warming/cooling effect of greenhouse gasses etc. etc. is working ON TOP OFF this 275K “base” temperature.
BenAW says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Since you are on this thread, read the article and what it says before you comment. The result of the modeling atmosphere is valid whatever gorilla you are adding to change the absolut tmperature of the assumed closed system.
Besides, the average absorbed solar power is about 239 W^m^2. The heat release form earth is 0.1-0.2 W/m^2 making your gorilla supply 0.15/239 = 0.0063 or 0.63% of the power heating earth´s atmosphere. This might make a gorilla by your standard but not by mine.
Maybe you should go to another thread with this topic since it has noting to do with my article. “The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmosphereic mass”.
BenAW says:
January 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but since Hans discusses the GHE in his paper I’ll give it a go.”
This is how I started my earlier post, got no objections at that time. Sorry if I stepped into your territory.
“The heat release form earth is 0.1-0.2 W/m^2 ”
I’ve seen this figure before, must assume it’s based on the radiation from exposed magma hot springs etc.
The gorilla I’m talking about is the temp. just 5 km or so below the ocean floors, quoted as around 600-700K. By conduction this must have an influence on earths temperature. We’re not living on a black/grey body.
Let’s see if Tallbloke deems this worthy of a separate thread.
Ben Wouters
[Reply] As Hans said, it’s not so much a matter of how hot it is, but a question of the rate it escapes at. The more open question is the ocean floor, which is thinner, with splits in it, and water cooled. Even if the rate is bigger there, it is steady, and small compared to solar input.
I’ve seen serious mention of large variation is heat leakage, specifically mentioning mid ocean ridges and so on. I also wonder about the ring-of-fire. A point perhaps is high heat leakage meets coldest ocean bottom water circa 4C. I assume spreading ocean floors are thinner.
Whether any of this has a material effect on overall air temperature is moot; discussion is right.
Below is fun stuff, gravity map is the same as sea level map, with the suggestion the sea level satellites move up and down on gravity, hence altitude varies. Chicken or egg.
Note the gravity and sea level in undersea hotspots. Note too this is close to enso, pdo and similar.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/discussion-so-far/
[Reply]BenAW Please make further comments regarding this on Tim’s gravity-heat anomaly thread not here. – Thanks
I thank Dr. Jelbring for his response, and I apologize if I misrepresented his paper. But my comments were based on reading it, not second-hand from Willis. I thought it was easy to understand, and I’m not claiming to have found any statement in it that wasn’t true, but the definition of greenhouse effect implied by the paper seems to be different from what other people mean by it.
I understand the greenhouse effect to be something that raises the effective radiation height, which together with a relatively constant lapse rate, results in a higher surface temperature, as explained by Leonard Weinstein.
Dr. Jelbring defines the greenhouse effect quite clearly as “The average global surface temperature minus the average infrared black body radiation temperature, as observed from space”. But this definition cannot be applied to his model, because it “neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space” and the GE “is independent of the absolute average temperature of the model atmosphere”. In it’s place, he identifies the GE with the lapse-rate-induced temperature difference (“the temperature difference (GE) between the surfaces”), dropping the all-important black body radiation temperature reference point.
Hans,
A thought-provoking analysis. I haven’t read many of the comments, but I think I I figured out the gist of the “Jelbring Effect” and can give the “elevator speech” explanation.
STEP 1: Instead of a greenhouse gas like CO2 at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that radiates at some IR wavelengths and is transparent at other IR wavelengths, use a greenhouse gas at the TOA that radiates at ALL IR wavelengths (ie is “black” to IR = emissivity = 1).
Or in your words “[The model planet globe] (G) and the atmosphere (AT) are surrounded by a concentric, tight, black spherical shell. “
STEP 2: Apply all the standard physics to the rest of the analysis.
A quick read-through makes me think that your discussion of “the rest of the analysis” is right (or close to right). The lapse rate will cause the temperatures to increase below the TOA due to gravity, independent (to a considerable extent) of greenhouse gases. Your “shell” at the TOA is taking the place of the GHGs at the TOA in terms of radiative effects.
The “Jelbring effect” is simply postulating something besides CO2 to radiate from the TOA. The shell wouldn’t have to be “black” (emissivity = 1), but the emissivity would have to be definitely greater than 0. Without the shell, the temperature enhancement would disappear. In other words, an atmosphere without a “lid” and without GHGs would put the put the TOA at ground level and the temperature would drop going up from there, making the atmosphere cool. Adding the “shell” means the temperature would increase going down from the shell, making the “surface” warm.
The “Jelbring effect” should actually work pretty well for Venus, where a permanent cloud layer acts as the “black shell” (since the cloud should be pretty close to “black” for IR light). The fact that the clouds are far from black for visible light would reduce the “Jelbring effect” but not eliminate it
————————————————————————
PS I have concluded that the ability to allow visible light thru is only a part of the “greenhouse effect”. Focusing too much on this aspect can obscure other important aspects, like lapse rate and IR within the atmosphere — but that would take considerably longer to explain (and some time beforehand to figure out how to explain it). So your postulate that the surface is “black” to visible light and not just to IR light would make some difference, but would not prevent the surface from being warmer than the shell at the TOA.
[…] predictions in Christchurch NZ : UPDATE: Huge quake hits Japan – Pacific-wide Tsunami UnderwayHans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric MassThe Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevanceAndrea Rossi: E-Cat megawatt […]
lateposter says:
January 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm
“I thank Dr. Jelbring for his response, and I apologize if I misrepresented his paper. But my comments were based on reading it, not second-hand from Willis. I thought it was easy to understand, and I’m not claiming to have found any statement in it that wasn’t true, but the definition of greenhouse effect implied by the paper seems to be different from what other people mean by it.”
Reply: (The original definition is what I say and it is still used by NASA. Just google Venus fact sheet, earth fact sheet, Mars fact sheet. Then calculate average surface temperature (observed) and subtract (black-body temperature)HJ
“I understand the greenhouse effect to be something that raises the effective radiation height, which together with a relatively constant lapse rate, results in a higher surface temperature, as explained by Leonard Weinstein.”
Reply: (The properties of ideal gases and their tendency to seek an energetic equilibrium in a gravity field is what produce the bulk of the improperly named Greenhouse Effect)HJ
“Dr. Jelbring defines the greenhouse effect quite clearly as “The average global surface temperature minus the average infrared black body radiation temperature, as observed from space”. But this definition cannot be applied to his model, because it “neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space” and the GE “is independent of the absolute average temperature of the model atmosphere”. In its place, he identifies the GE with the lapse-rate-induced temperature difference (“the temperature difference (GE) between the surfaces”), dropping the all-important black body radiation temperature reference point.”
Reply:(How and and to what the degree the model results can be applied to earthly conditions has to be discussed and examined. In the model atmosphere the Greenhouse Effect is d g/Cp which is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the enclosed atmosphere. In a real atmosphere the coldest part of the troposphere is its uppermost part which by definition decide the border to the tropopause. A number of physical processes affect the real (regional) greenhouse effect on earth, such as solar isolation, cloud cover, altitude. latitude, land, sea etc. There are good (observational) reasons to dismiss the impact of carbon dioxide but water vapour should not be discounted)HJ
[for clarity changed format –Tim]
Tim Folkerts says:
January 15, 2012 at 1:34 am
“The “Jelbring effect” should actually work pretty well for Venus, where a permanent cloud layer acts as the “black shell” (since the cloud should be pretty close to “black” for IR light). The fact that the clouds are far from black for visible light would reduce the “Jelbring effect” but not eliminate it”
Many thanks for your interest. I am not fond of the concepts “Jelbring effect” or “Elevator speach” and I have ojections to your views but I leave them out here. It is true that the model result in my E&E paper is most applicable to the Venus atmosphere depending on the thick atmosphere on that planet. The bulk of IR power to space will always occure high up in the troposphere. I also correctly predicted the temperatuere lapse rate in the Titan atmosphere at the Climate Sceptic group 6 month before the sond arrived.
Hans,
My point is simply that your model assumes a “top of atmosphere” (TOA) that is completely opaque to IR. This is very similar to the standard model, only you are hypothesizing a “super-GHG” that absorbs all frequencies of thermal IR (but that only floats at the very top of the atmosphere). In this sense, your are making a variation of the standard GH models. In the end, you have CONFIRMED the need for GHGs at the TOA! (And in my opinion, focusing on the TOA is the best way to understand the GHE.)
“Hans, My point is simply that your model assumes a “top of atmosphere” (TOA) that is completely opaque to IR. This is very similar to the standard model, only you are hypothesizing a “super-GHG” that absorbs all frequencies of thermal IR (but that only floats at the very top of the atmosphere). In this sense, your are making a variation of the standard GH models. In the end, you have CONFIRMED the need for GHGs at the TOA! (And in my opinion, focusing on the TOA is the best way to understand the GHE.)”
It is interesting how you cling to the concepts that are familiar to you like (TOA and GHG) but I grasp what you mean and you are correct but I would like to reformulate your statement:
-The application of my insulated static model is of most value (is applicable to real atmospheres) if IR radiation to space is dominantly emitted from the upper troposphere.-
This is actually the case which is supported by observations on earth and other planetary atmospheres. To examine why and from where IR to space is sent out is as you say of a prime interest.
The reason why the concept GHG should not be used generally is that much IR is sent to space from dust, salt crystals, ice crystals, droplets (clouds) and greenhouse gases (mostly water vapour) besides that surface of earth. The focus on GHG and radiative processes in an only gaseous atmospheres (carbon dioxide) originates from IPCC for unscientific reasons. Another is that the temperature is measured by observing carbon dioxid spectra but that does not mean that all IR power is proportional to either carbondioxide or water vapor concentrations. it can be mentioned that there is a dip in IR emission from equatorial regions (ITCZ) where there are clouds at high eltitudes.
My paper describes a static model from which some important results are emanating. You jump directly to look at the dynamic application in a real atmosphere and that is the exactly what is meant to happen. But the model is simply an insulated closed sphere where the concepts of TOA and GHG are unimportant.
My model is constructed in a way that both the first and second law of thermodynamics is valid and hence the the derivation is based ONLY on first principle physics. This was the major reason to design the thought experiment as it is formulated.
Many thanks for your interest.
[…] – Pacific-wide Tsunami UnderwayThe Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevanceHans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric MassMinor legal updateGerry Pease: Significant solar-planetary syzygies 1894-2013Hans Schreuder: […]
I have been tied up with personal business for the past week or so and am now trying to catch up with all the Tallbloke threads. You guys have been busy. I also looked at the Willis thread at WUWT – what a mess!
There are a lot of good ideas floating around but I would like to bring us back to the basics and try to tie some of these ideas together. These basics are also germane to understanding the Jelbring paper. There is a lot of talk about “conservation of energy” so let’s go to the foundation of that premise – the first law of thermodynamics.
For a “dry” atmosphere in an electromagnetic and gravitational field, the first law can be written:
dU = CpdT + gdz (1)
This equation is also known in meteorology as “dry static energy” and is closely related to “potential temperature”. For a quick derivation and identification of terms see my earlier post (and link to my 2010 E&E paper) at
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/#comment-12990
For a system (atmosphere) in steady state equilibrium, the internal energy (U) of the system is constant (conservation of energy) and dU = 0. This means that at any point in the system (atmosphere):
CpdT + gdz = 0 (2) and
CpT + gz = constant (3)
This is the focal point of the Jelbring paper. As you ascend vertically in the atmosphere the thermal energy (and therefore temperature) decreases and the gravitational potential energy increases. Energy is conserved. Thus there is a vertical thermal gradient in an atmosphere that is under the influence of both an electromagnetic and gravitational field. The gradient can be represented by rearranging equation (2) to give:
dT/dz = -g/Cp (4)
Thus the vertical temperature profile in an ideal steady state atmosphere is solely a function of the gravitational acceleration and the specific heat capacity (at constant pressure) of the atmospheric gas. It does not matter if the gases are GHG’s or not, it does not matter what the down welling radiation is, it does not matter what the pressure is (as long as it is above 0.2 atm.), it does not matter what the density is, it does not matter what the absolute temperature is at any given point. The dry adiabatic temperature gradient is a constant, is a function of gravity and heat capacity only, and is a direct result of the first law and the conservation of energy.
The temperature at any given point is a function of the total heat content of the atmosphere. The heat content is a function of the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing long wave radiation. The total heat content can change (due to a change in the effective emission height for instance), and therefore the absolute temperature at any point can change, but once steady state is reached, the temperature gradient remains a constant. In all cases, the temperature at the surface will be warmer than the temperature at any altitude.
The “green house effect” is simply the difference between the surface temperature and the effective temperature at the effective emission altitude (z) (Jelbring’s outer sphere). It is controlled by the adiabatic lapse rate, not by “back radiation”. “Back radiation” is a function of the surface temperature, not the other way around.
This is the Jelbring hypothesis and it is very straight forward. If you add water vapor to the mix, things get a little more complicated but the results are still based on the first law and the conservation of energy. See my E&E paper for one example of how latent heat is treated in this manner.
———————————————————————————————————-
There also seems to be a lot of discussion concerning gravity and its relation to energy. This is an important concept and is key to understanding how energy is conserved in the troposphere by transforming thermal energy (CpT) to gravitational potential energy (gz) and vice versa. As pointed out by Tallbloke, gravity is a force, not energy. But when this force acts on mass, energy is created. If this force causes the mass to be displaced, work energy is the result. If this force acts on mass but displacement does not occur, then we call this potential energy.
In the troposphere, if gravity causes displacement of a gas (compression), we refer to this as PV work energy. Thermodynamically, this is PV work that is done to the gas by the surroundings. But a gas can also expand. This is mass displacement against the force of gravity and is considered PV work done by the gas to the surroundings. This can be shown by rewriting the first law as expressed in equation (1) as:
dU = CvdT + gdz – PdV (5)
where Cv is the specific heat capacity at constant volume. (See my earlier post above and the link to my paper for an explanation of the derivation). If heat is transferred to a gas parcel (e.g., conduction from the surface), dT > 0 and the parcel will expand and perform PV work on the surroundings against the force of gravity. In doing this, thermal energy (CvT) is converted to PV work energy and the parcel cools, but energy is conserved. The parcel now has a higher pressure than its surroundings and will rise to a lower pressure area. (Note: buoyancy is caused by a pressure differential, not a density differential. Where heat transfer is driven by ∆T, mass transfer is driven by ∆P. Density is a result, not a cause). The parcel rises, expands and cools further until it reaches an isobaric location. During its rise the parcel is doing PV work on its surroundings while displacing other parcels. Once the pressure with the surroundings is equalized, the parcel becomes stationary and contains an additional gravitational potential energy equivalent to the PV work energy that was expended. Thus thermal energy has been converted to gravitational potential energy via PV work energy. Energy is conserved isentropically throughout the process. This is convection.
Convection is a reversible process and mass transfer can also occur in a downward direction. This is called subsidence. In this case the parcel can cool and PV work (compression) will be performed on the parcel by the gravitational force from the surroundings and the parcel will descend. This PV work energy will be transformed to thermal energy during compression. Energy is once again conserved.
In summary, I cannot understand why respected people like Willis and Anthony have this mental block against the recognition of the very significant role that gravity plays in the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Work energy is the crux of the heat and mass transfer distribution throughout the troposphere. And work energy is performed either with or against the gravitational force created by the gravitational field. It is the “dynamics” of atmospheric thermodynamics. Why do they think the tropopause is higher at the equator than at the higher latitudes? Why does the tropopause fluctuate in height at the equator? Hint: PV work against gravity.
———————————————————————————————————-
I have not yet had the time to study the Velasco and Coombes papers, but I have skimmed them. I am not sure why they come up with an isothermal temperature gradient. But I have played around with the kinetic theory of gases and the equipartition theorem a little bit and I know they have trouble dealing with diatomic gases at ambient or lower temperatures. They both have trouble predicting the specific heat capacity of diatomic gases. And this is just with the Cv. I am not sure how well they handle Cp which encompasses PV work. And since the first law formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate is dT/dz = -g/Cp, I think they may be using the wrong tool, i.e., statistical mechanics, to do this work. But this is not my area of expertise. I’m just a dumb engineer.
————————————————————————————————————
I have not yet gotten through all of the Unified Theory and Loschmidt threads. Some of what I have discussed may be covered there. I look forward to reading them. I welcome any critique that any of you may have to my above analyses. I am still learning. I will post this at both the Jelbring and Gravity threads just in case.
Bill
William Gilbert says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:16 am
What a relief! After waiting 8 years someone is finally doing what any serious climate scientist should have done soon after the publication of my E&E paper in 2003.
Many thanks for your efforts to deliver a serious assessment of my paper based on strict science and a good all round knowledge. It is no surprise to me that you are an engineer with a profession in chemistry. I also notice that you didn´t manage to do an “elevator speech” when “translating” the condensed message in my E&E article to the more well known chemical language.
There are some minor points I would like to mention. Bill is a chemist and he prefers to discuss specific energy, which is energy per mass unit. The physical dimension of that concept is actually (m/s)^2 which within electrical theory is called Volt. Sometimes Bill leaves out the specific and calls “specific energy” for energy and this introduce a dimension error which is very common among Anglo chemical scientists. It often introduces confusion of understanding. The most prominent example is the concept of PV which simply has the dimension energy (kg m^2/s^2). PdV has the same dimension in basic chemistry equations but what is meant then is “specific PdV” with the dimension m^2/s^2.
(See equation (5))
Bill is saying: “Why do they think the tropopause is higher at the equator than at the higher latitudes?” The reason is that the statement is true. The cause is simply that strong solar irradiation in equatorial regions often (during day time) promotes an approximate adiabatic temperature lapse rate to develop and produces the coldest temperature at high altitudes (the border of the troposphere). It might be enough just to claim that polar air is colder than the equatorial one which leads to a maximum IR emission at lower altitudes in polar areas.
The general subduction that happens in polar areas also promotes inversions and a lowering of the troposphere and tropopause. Cold air is constantly flowing equatorward from polar areas (Mobile Polar Highs as Marcel Leroux termed them) along the surface. This mass is replaced by high altitude air replacing it. This is the major way that energy is transported to the polar areas and it is the only way during total darkness. Advection of energy is at work which is horizontal convection in meteorological terminology.
Once again, many thanks.
@William Gilbert says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:16 am :”But this is not my area of expertise. I’m just a dumb engineer.”
Thank god! A man not educated beyond his intelligence. Good show Bill, very good indeed. pg
P.G. Sharrow says:
January 17, 2012 at 6:39 am
@William Gilbert says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:16 am :”But this is not my area of expertise. I’m just a dumb engineer.”
“Thank god! A man not educated beyond his intelligence. Good show Bill, very good indeed. pg”
You might say that engineers make things work while climate scientists seem more interested in cash flows.
FYI from WUWT about “thought experiments”. ALL assumptions, boundary conditions etc have to
be very carefully declared. When the results are made the applications on nature should be demonstrated if there is to be any value of the excercise./HJ
OzWizard says:
January 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Since Tallbloke first published the “Unified Theory of Climate” by N & Z, and reminded everyone about Hans Jellbring’s hypothesis, I have watched the melting of the inimitable Willis Eschenbach’s mind in fascination. I feel I must attempt to put out the fire in his head before it consumes him completely. I have enjoyed most of his earlier perspicacious writings and do not want to lose him.
I believe Willis’ approach to this theory is revealing: (a) it makes his head hurt; (b) he wants someone else to explain where his thinking is wrong.
Well, I would hate to see him self-destruct due “excess heat” build-up in his head so I offer the following (including my “elevator speech”) as an antidote to his dilemma. Be honest with yourself, Willis. The fact this alternative theory makes your head hurt is a sign of “impending change”; your paradigm is being altered and that is making you uncomfortable.
The biggest trouble with thought experiments, Willis, is that if you are not extremely careful, you can end up believing that things like M C Escher’s impossible “ascending-descending” stairway is physically possible. The main problem is that there is no “reality check” built into a thought experiment. That is why Einstein’s relativity theory led to the TWIN PARADOX.
You should be able to agree that paradoxes do not exist in REALITY, but only in the mind, generally as a result of false premises in the logical process which generates them as a part of their “logical conclusion”.
For me, the Greenhouse Gas Theory is in the same class as the Escher stairway (or the Twin Paradox of Relativity, or the Wave-Particle Duality of Planck and others). If you believe any one of these things is possible, and are prepared to defend it as “a reality”, you have already “lost the plot”. You have effectively surrendered your intellect to a smooth-talking con-man.
The false premise in the ‘GG theory’ is the postulated existence of the effect of ‘back radiation’ from a cold atmospheric trace gas, namely, that such a ‘cool’ gas can cause a ‘warmer’ surface to be raised to a higher temperature than it would otherwise be, without the presence of the ‘cool’ gas. If this does not seem to you to be the quintessential recipe for a perpetual motion device, then you have lost the essential critical faculty which defines a scientific mind.
As for the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement (ATE; NTE) postulated by N & Z, here is my “elevator speech”:
·1. The existence of a dimensionless Thermal Expansion Coefficient of steel does not imply that “gravity cause steel to expand”.
·2. Likewise, the existence of a dimensionless ATE ‘factor’ does not imply that “gravity causes heating of the lower atmosphere”, in defiance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
·3. In both cases, the dimensionless ratio in question enables us to calculate easily what the effect of “heat input” will be on, in the first case, a bar of steel and, in the second case, a planetary atmosphere subjected to gravitational compression.
I hope that did not strain your attention span, Willis. From that point on, you should be able follow the logic. I’ll leave the pleasure of that process of discovery for you to enjoy at your own pace.
Hans,
The thermal dual of Volts is Temperature (K).
Maybe you are talking about a different dual.
Hans,
I’m glad I interpreted your paper correctly and you were satisfied. Several years ago I first read Thieme and then your paper. Everything then began to fall into place. Understanding the role of gravity is critical to understanding atmospheric thermodynamics and I am beginning to realize why climate scientists can’t seem to get anything right. Meteorologists are much better – at least they know what potential temperature is.
Bill
“tchannon says:
January 17, 2012 at 11:45 am
Hans,
The thermal dual of Volts is Temperature (K).
Maybe you are talking about a different dual.”
Consider the well known relationrelation:
dE = m Cv dT (I believe the gas thermomter is based on this relationship as long as
Cv can be considered as approximately constant)
Specific energy E/m has the dimension m^2/s^2. It follows that CvT has the same dimension not T alone. Since I don´t understand dual I don´t know if this was an answer to your objection. I will be very interested if you are claiming that the dimension of temperature is the same as for volt. Please show me.
Have to confess I do not visit here as often as I should. Apparently at my own loss. Having just spent several (disbelieving) days following Willis’ thread at WUWT and finding myself at odds with probably 80% plus of postings there, I find cool rational sanity here. Well explained and easily understood in context of my well-rusted physics. I am a real supporter of this line of thinking, even though this is not my field. Thank you. Will be following the progress with great interest.
Gabriel van den Bergh
[…] has been shown by Jelbring 2003 (ref 2) that the an energetically closed planetary atmosphere under the impact of gravity which is allowed […]
[…] theory anyway) are currently resting on two threads which attack Hans Jelbring’s 2003 and 2012 papers, (without actually critiquing the gedanken experiments he set up), in which they […]