Planet with gravity, transparent atmosphere

Posted: February 18, 2012 by tchannon in Astrophysics, atmosphere, climate, general circulation, weather

planet-asym-gravity

Relative to the previous illustration the planet is no longer magical, it possess gravity, having profound effects. The atmosphere is still optically transparent, no GHG.

Previous post of this series is here.

Convection and winds[1], are now present dayside, very effectively limiting surface temperature rise, the heat being swept away into the atmosphere so a normal lapse rate[2] forms. Keep in mind that temperature does not equate to latent energy when there is variable gas pressure. The major point being the atmosphere now has a mechanical mixing mechanism which dominates over gas conduction.

Nightside something unexpected tends to happen. (I say tend because whilst this is not Earth, on Earth it is not everywhere on Earth and I want to avoid pedantic arguments, yes what I am showing is incomplete). Partial evidence from Earth is referenced later on.

Image

Click for reference

“Night time cooling – radiation inversion. During the night time hours, there is no SW heating the ground, so the ground cools rapidly”

Nightside there is no power source for convection, less wind, only leaving conduction from the atmosphere to the surface and radiation from there to space. The cold air sinks, discovering unfortunately it’s already there, in consequence a temperature inversion forms, increasing temperature with height. Gas is a poor conductor of heat.

On dayside, convection pumped up atmospheric heat, but the heat is still there above the inversion where it stays all night. This is where GHG will work to breach the barrier radiating down to the cold surface, reducing day/night temperature differential, perhaps also allowing air to cool and sink forming weak reverse convection, all told an extremely complex situation.

In consequence for this planet the atmospheric temperature is elevated above the simple radiative case. Obviously there are many details and I am describing a simplistic situation for illustrative purposes.

Nightside inversions and other strange things, the balloon goes up

There is extensive evidence in lapse rate profiles vs. time of day from radiosond and sounders, if less evidence over oceans where inversions also form. I leave the majority of that reseach to the reader.

A little while ago Talkshop contributor Ben Wouters (BenAW), who in real life has extensive experience of atmospheric conditions pointed out a fascinating subject: Low Level Nocturnal Jets, which are related to inversions.

There was a problem with the remote web site he cited, now is a good time to point.

Author is Don Portman, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, The University of Michigan, member of American Meteorological Society.

He is also active in the Ballooning community where it is a bad idea to see a lovely early morning, inflate the balloon, up you go only to discover a howling gale just above the canopy. There again balloonists steer by using wind direction change vs. altitude. In cloudy England we are used to seeing clouds at different levels moving in different directions, it’s a layer cake.

http://www.windwisdom.net/

Other material, a random selection

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/391/

Over Moscow http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/1/1/012040/pdf/1755-1315_1_1_012040.pdf

West Africa Monsoon http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139902.pdf

West Africa as presentation http://www.cmmap.org/research/docs/aug11/bo-ls-rachel.pdf

Live atmospheric data, Chilbolton, England where real conditions can be monitored

http://www.stfc.ac.uk/Chilbolton/Default.aspx

Look at the Weather Web for live data which you will find almost no-where else and diurnal changes are clear.

Image

Google maps site location, aerial photo

the marks in the ploughed fields nearby are echo of history from a former RAF airfield, most governments sites have that origin, where we had hundreds dotted around from WW2 and before. http://www.controltowers.co.uk/C/Chilbolton.htm

Radiation Fog, Louisiana and Southeast Texas

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/?n=fogres2

Inversions happen in Australia too

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/ftweather/page_16.shtml

You can help by giving reference to useful material for future reference, a blog like this is not talk only.

Please point out my mistakes. I’m trying to put up illustrations for enhancing understanding.

Next up, maybe, the atmosphere is no longer transparent.

[1] Two commenters on previous articles correctly pointed out winds from the Corriolis effect will be present. I hope avoiding details like that is not too damaging.

[2] Question has been asked of What is a normal lapse rate? Good question. I don’t know, lets leave that for discussion and any conclusion reached.

Article image is here as an OpenOffce/LibreOffice Writer file, WordPress workaround, wrong extension, is a drawing but opens correctly anyway.

Article posted by Tim Channon, co-moderator

Comments
  1. Genghis says:

    I think your model is describing a Venus model where the night time temperatures are almost as high as the daytime temperatures, despite the fact that Venus’s atmosphere consists almost entirely of radiative gases. It is all about the atmospheres ability to transport heat from hot areas to the colder areas. I don’t think having a transparent atmosphere or not, matters in the least.

    The more effective the atmosphere is in averaging the temperature across the planets surface, the hotter the average temperature will be. Solely due to the fact that temp radiates to the fourth power, as the N&Z paper clearly showed.

    It is H20 in the system that makes everything interesting, from the ocean currents and sinks to evaporation and precipitation to snow and ice, etc. etc.

  2. Joachim Seifert says:

    I am missing following details about the: “Top of the atmosphere”…..

    (1) How does N2/O2 as well as the smaller molecules get sucked up into great
    heights …. there is a vortex over the poles…. and I assume that the Moon
    not only draws up ocean tides but also the atmosphere in pace with his advance
    around Earth over the tropics….

    (2) AIR which is sucked up is being decomposed into plasma, and is LOST into
    space, details see
    WUWT post: “Giant veil of cold plasma discovered high above Earth”

    (3) Decomposed air mass/volume has to be subtracted in GHG/global temp
    calculations…..this is not done by AGW, because this decomposed, lost
    volume into space figures as contributing to global warming….. since the
    atmosphere is constant in volume and cannot grow (otherwise would extend
    much more toward the Moon over millions of years)…..
    AGW only considers radiation lost into space (albedo) but not
    air mass losses…..
    The calculation should be: For each CO2-volume added on the Earth’s surface,
    the same volume has to be accounted as loss on the atmosphere’s top….

    (4) There is no greenhouse top which prevents MASS LOSSES into space…..
    the greenhouse in reality is OPEN on top and looses both mass and
    radiation (albedo)…..
    …therefore staying within the atmosphere is only half the story…. a major
    part is missing….
    ….Time to add it in presentations and straighten out GHG-effect
    calculations with substantial subtractions…..
    JS

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    A burning question: What is it that keeps the atmosphere surrounding the earth? If we just answer “gravity”, we are just giving a “name” instead of an answer. I have the practical experience of producing a chemical compound in two varieties: Both having the same particle size but different bulk density. In the one having a lower bulk density, particles have a higher static electric charge which retains an “atmosphere” around each of them and which separates them making them fill a greater volume with the same weight. Could it be that the same phenomenon can occur with that “particle” called Earth?

  4. Hans says:

    Roger,

    This model is useful to discus for several reasons which I hope to illustrate below. However you have to interpret what physical processes will occur correctly and you should change the statement below. You are saying:

    “Nightside there is no power source for convection, less wind, only leaving conduction from the atmosphere to the surface and radiation from there to space. The cold air sinks, discovering unfortunately it’s already there, in consequence a temperature inversion forms, increasing temperature with height. Gas is a poor conductor of heat.”

    1. There is a power source for convection on the night side (and day side) contrary to what you are claiming. This is fundamental for understanding global wind systems.
    2. You correctly state that a temperature inversion will happen on the night side at ground level (at least when large scale surface winds are absent).
    3. You mention the very important fact that “Low Level Nocturnal Jets” exist. (This fact has mostly been ignored by climatologists, mainly for lack of understanding their cause(s)).
    4. The importance of forced convective heat transfer is often overlooked in models despite being the dominant heat transfer process in the real atmosphere (and also in your moel atmosphere).
    5. The rotation of the planet adds to wind systems on both day and night side.

    I have not read any of the references yet and might have missed something for that reason. What I have to say is more than enough for one post anyway.

    1. The day time solar energy is lifting the atmosphere. The cooling on the night side is lowering the atmosphere creating subsidence. If you look at the pressure at any fixed elevation around the planet there will exist a pressure difference at all levels. More the higher up from ground level. This is the driver of large scale horizontal winds on all altitudes. Basically cold surface air will move from the dark side to replace lifting warm air on the day side along the surface. At high altitudes warm air will “fall down” to the cold side. Gravity at work.
    2. This is really what happens when horizontal winds aren´t strong during night time which can be seen most clearly in desert regions.
    3. During the Koorin expedition in Australia this happened every night during 30 nights. The maximum wind speed was about 15 m/s at an elevation of 150 m above the surface.
    In fact, theses wind were one reason why the Koorin data was ignored and why the presentation of the data took so long time (4 years). Nobody understood why these “low level jets” evolved. The expectations were to find horisontal winds to be dominated by a “geostrophic wind system” balance. This was not the case.
    4. The dominating energy transfer within the model system will be “forced convective heat transfer” between the surface of the model planet and the lowest part of the atmosphere. Horizontal winds will exist during most part of the day on both the day- and nightside. “forced convective heat transfer” will be of two types: laminar flow and turbulent flow interacting with surface structures at all scales. Conduction will still be a very minor process in action as it is in the real world.
    5. The nocturnal low level jets are actually driven by the rotation of earth. There is a horizontal component of the centrifugal force which act on the dense cold night surface air which is very shallow. This is the reason why these low level jets at Daly Waters (Koorin expedition) had a maximum at such a low level. The same type of winds will exist in the model atmosphere.

    Hans Jelbring

  5. Hans says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    February 19, 2012 at 12:51 am

    “A burning question: What is it that keeps the atmosphere surrounding the earth? If we just answer “gravity”, we are just giving a “name” instead of an answer. I have the practical experience of producing a chemical compound in two varieties: Both having the same particle size but different bulk density. In the one having a lower bulk density, particles have a higher static electric charge which retains an “atmosphere” around each of them and which separates them making them fill a greater volume with the same weight. Could it be that the same phenomenon can occur with that “particle” called Earth?”

    Gravity is the correct answer even if nobody undersstands what is causing it or how it works. It is not just a name since its impact can be pretty well modelled quantitatively by the Newton law.

    I can confirm you observation about particles but it is not static electric charge in the first place that cause what you observe even if charged particles are common, too. If you compare the density of different particle sizes below 60 microns you will find that the bulk density of smaller particles are less. This depends on van der Wall forces which attach oxygen and nitrogen to ANY particle suspended in air (another name?). This phenomena is certainly important for micro processes in the atmosphere. I have pointed out several times that small suspended particles are important for radiative processes in ALL known planetary atmospheres in our solar system. They exist everywhere and are essential for the creation of water droplets in our atmosphere.

  6. Hans says:

    Genghis says:
    February 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    “I think your model is describing a Venus model where the night time temperatures are almost as high as the daytime temperatures, despite the fact that Venus’s atmosphere consists almost entirely of radiative gases. It is all about the atmospheres ability to transport heat from hot areas to the colder areas. I don’t think having a transparent atmosphere or not, matters in the least.”

    I mostly agree but would like to add some information. You cannot forget that there are plenty of small particles that can send IR to space from the upper Venusian atmosphere. It would for sure be interesting to know what the temperature gradient on Venus would look like if there were no partilce in the air and no “greenhouse” gases.
    The temperature distribution in the Venusian atmosphere is dominated by the physical process of convective energy distribution leading to approximately equal energy to any equal mass of the atroposphere which is equivalent to dT/dz = -g/Cp. This process is most effectiv in dense atmospheres. This is possible as long as convective heat transfer is dominating energy distribution which is to say that it works in the troposphere but not higher up. You could say that it works below about 0.2 bar which is confirmed by observational evidence in any planetary atmosphere in our solar system.

  7. Brian H says:

    As Hans says, heavy surface-cooled air from the night side will continuously be trying to invade the warm side.

    Also, as solar heating begins to take effect each ‘morning’, the warmed air will expand, pressure-pushing the cool night air towards the ‘evening’ terminator.

    What will the effects of the ‘diurnal bulge’ be, that follows the sun around at about the 2 p.m. position?

    Flows everywhere …

  8. Richard111 says:

    Layman mumblings, sunshine over ocean and no wind, evaporation introducing EXTRA molecules into the air. VOLUME of air is increasing, high pressure cell is building. Coriolis force intrudes, etc.etc. Increasing complexity. All DAYTIME events. NIGHTTIME has different events. Divide by 4 hypothesys load of cobblers.

  9. Richard111 says:

    I’ve just read that CO2 absorbs near IR at 1437, 1955, 2013, and 2060 nanometers.
    Surely this is only possible when the sun is overhead thus CO2 is SHIELDING the
    surface below. Another daytime only effect.

    [this is an interesting topic which is kind of slated for later discussion, blocked wavelength channels where solar heat which would normally heat the surface cannot do so and therefore no cooling is necessary either, but it isn't that simple. Related to albedo (as in reflection/emission). --Tim]

  10. Roger Clague says:

    I like your model. Lapse rate, conduction and convection, latent energy and pressure are well known thermodynamic concepts.

    What does transparent to radiation mean? All matter absorbs and emits radiation.

    For the atmosphere as a system radiation in equals radiation out. So transparent mean neural to radiation.

    You say ” This is where GHG will….”.However you model assumes there are no GHG’s. Stick to thermodynamics.

  11. BenAW says:

    Tim

    [1] Two commenters on previous articles correctly pointed out winds from the Corriolis effect will be present.

    Can you explain what this is supposed to mean?
    Last time I checked, if there is no wind, there is no corriolis effect.

  12. tchannon says:

    A spinning planet produces differential forces within it’s body. Where this is air it creates movement and we have wind.

    http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/courses/gg101/coriolis/coriolis.html


    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/guides/mtr/fw

  13. tchannon says:

    Roger Clague says:

    “What does transparent to radiation mean? All matter absorbs and emits radiation.”

    Quite so.

    This is a simplified model for illustration and clarification purposes where the series started with a wholly fictitious model. Omitting “greenhouse” gases is a simplification to aid process understanding.

    A further reason is hurling back at the ghg proponents their own assertion there is no possible way for an atmosphere to heat without those gases. They forgot reality, there are other laws hiding in the demons of cold darkness, where we can shed some light.

  14. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Tim; It is good that you point out that very little energy is transferred by conduction in gases. In gases energy is mostly transferred by radiation and bulk movement of convection. Convection dominates in the Troposphere and Radiation dominates above. Water vapor is the most active of these gases but is limited by its’ vapor pressure / temperature changes. It’s the water that creates the troposphere and the “weather”in it. Without water this would be a simple toy planet atmosphere to play with for the armchair scientists. The idea of understanding clouds is way too complex for them. Now the observations of balloonists is of great value in understanding air currents, only birds and balloonists have to understand the nuances of the air to a very fine degree. pg

  15. Stephen Wilde says:

    I like Hans’s description of forced convective heat transfer. I had been concerned about the inadequacy of conduction alone on short timescales and that helps to explain how energy is moved around without needing to rely on radiative transfers from GHGs.

  16. Hans says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 19, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    “I like Hans’s description of forced convective heat transfer. I had been concerned about the inadequacy of conduction alone on short timescales and that helps to explain how energy is moved around without needing to rely on radiative transfers from GHGs.”

    This is a “forgotten” concept and a reality. Any leaf of any tree interact with in this way with the atmosphere. The heat transfer is also size dependant. Turbulent heat transfer is most effective and develops faster around small surface objects.
    The heat transfer (W/m^2) between the surface and air also does depend on the temperature difference between these two objects. It is proportional to wind speed squared. The highest “forced convective heat transfer” I have heard of is 270 W/m^2 which is a very high number. It was measured when a Mobile Polar High (A concept defined by the late natural geographer professor Marcel Leraux) moved over the Japanese See during winter time. The very cold air interacted with the open sea at high speed moving from from north to south. Unfortunately I have no reference, at least not just now.

  17. BenAW says:

    tchannon says:
    February 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    “A spinning planet produces differential forces within it’s body. Where this is air it creates movement and we have wind”

    A spinning planet without any pressure differences on the surface will have no wind imo.
    Friction will take the air along with the rotating surface.
    IF the rate of rotation changes (lets say halves suddenly) the mass of the moving air will let it continue with the speed it had, slowly decelerating due to friction. This is wind, the speed of which reduces untill a new steady state is achieved, again wihout wind.

    The corriolis effect is an appearant force due to an object moving over a rotating surface.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect figure 1 is pretty clear.
    No movement, no corriolis effect.
    Wind is caused by pressure differences, flowing from high to lower pressure.
    If the high and low pressure cells are aligned along an east-west axis, there will be NO corriolis effect. Only when the wind blows across lattitudes, the corriolis effect kicks in.

  18. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The highest “forced convective heat transfer” I have heard of is 270 W/m^2 which is a very high number. It was measured when a Mobile Polar High (A concept defined by the late natural geographer professor Marcel Leraux) moved over the Japanese See during winter time. The very cold air interacted with the open sea at high speed moving from from north to south.”

    Even better.

    That would suggest potentially very high thermal effectiveness in stabilising the energy budget against disruptive forces such as volcanic eruptions or changes in GHG quantities when the permanent climate zones respond by shifting latitudinally in excess of ‘normal’ seasonal variability.

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    “A spinning planet without any pressure differences on the surface will have no wind imo.”

    Such a planet near a single (or even double) sun will have a day and night with the temperature differentials causing pressure differentials.

    There will also be a similar effect betwen equator and poles due to the variable angle of incidence.

    The height of the tropopause is different at equator compared to poles for example.

    Winds are therefore inevitable.

  20. BenAW says:

    Hans says:
    January 31, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Your first word indicate that you don´t know what you are talking about. The rest of your mail proves it.
    Try being serious.

    Patiently awaiting proof of the nonsense I allegedly have written plus a serious rebuttal of that nonsense.
    If nothing is forthcoming, you may consider toning down your arrogance a bit.

    Now you post this nonsense:
    5. The nocturnal low level jets are actually driven by the rotation of earth. There is a horizontal component of the centrifugal force which act on the dense cold night surface air which is very shallow. This is the reason why these low level jets at Daly Waters (Koorin expedition) had a maximum at such a low level. The same type of winds will exist in the model atmosphere.

    It seems you are pretty much clueless about even the most basic meteorological processes.
    Let me remind you of the brilliant explanation you gave of Chinook winds.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/ausie-dan-encircling-the-dragon-2/#comment-16382
    Hans says:
    February 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    ” If you want to know the true answer it is that atmospheric air is sucked down east of the Rocky mountains and as a consequence the air temperature is rising at (close to) the adiabatic rate of g/Cp (9.8 k/km) which tells that the air is coming from 2 km altitude if the temperature increase is approximately +20C. It often happens close to Denver”

    Since I already gave the explanation here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/back-to-basics-2-lapse-rates-and-atmospheric-stability/#comment-16143
    I’m really surprised that you still come up with the nonsense I quoted above.

    The Föhn wind (or any similar effect like Chinook winds etc.) are a very elegant demonstration of the Gas Laws, specifically the Dry and Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rates. This is basic meteorology, as taught when I was studying meteo.

    Consider the European Alps and a NW wind forcing air up and over the mountains.
    If the air is dry, the up and down wind part of the flow both follow the DALR, so the temp at eg. sealevel in front and behind the mountains is the same.

    Moist air: uphill DALR untill clouds form, then WALR to the heighest alt. the air reaches, WALR down also untill the clouds disappear (at the same altitude as in front of the mountains) and then DALR to sealevel again. Also here the temp. in front and behind the mountain is the same at eg. sealevel, still no Föhn effect.

    Now very moist air, clouds form very low, so the air cools according the WALR. During the climb the air looses most of it’s moisture by raining out. This is ESSENTIAL for a Föhneffect to develop.
    Assume just over the top the descending air clears, and all the way down follows the DALR.
    Climbing air cools with ~5K/km, descending air warms with ~9,8K/km.
    This is the classical and well understood explanation of the Föhn effect.

    Pse accept my advice to keep quiet on things you have no clue about.

  21. BenAW says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 19, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    “A spinning planet without any pressure differences on the surface will have no wind imo.”

    Such a planet near a single (or even double) sun will have a day and night with the temperature differentials causing pressure differentials.

    I started with: A spinning planet without any pressure differences

    So I miss the point of your remarks.

  22. Hans says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 19, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    “Winds are therefore inevitable.”
    (for a number of reasons where inter hemispheric pressure differences is the major cause producing winds between day/night side and between seasons)

    Correct for the rotating model atmosphere with no “greenhouse” gases and no radiative processes and for any real atmosphere, too.
    This model is great for understanding what physical processes are active when radation processes are dismissed. It makes it much harder to claim that radiative processes are the dominating cause creating a specific temperature profile in a real atmosphere such as the ones on earth and Venus.

  23. BenAW says:

    Nocturnal low level jets are mostly found during nighttime, when a cold “stickey” layer near the surface exists.
    Wind is created by pressure differences. Wind speeds near the surface are allways somewhat lower than higher up, due to resistance from the surface (trees, buildings etc.etc.)
    When the gradient wind isn’t TOO high, during the night a cold layer can develop, that provides a very smooth “surface” over which the gradient wind will have a considerably higher speed than without the cold layer and thus the resistance of the earths surface.
    In practice you can have zero wind at the surface in the cold layer, and 40-50 km/hr wind just a few hundred meters up.

  24. BenAW says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    February 19, 2012 at 12:51 am

    A burning question: What is it that keeps the atmosphere surrounding the earth? If we just answer “gravity”, we are just giving a “name” instead of an answer

    My understanding: planet with gravity, surface temp 0K, the atmosphere will be compacted at the surface, at minimum volume.
    Warming up the surface, the molecules of the atmosphere will warm up as well, and start to vibrate, colliding into each other. If the number of collisions become too high the molecules can move UP, reducing the pressure.
    So the higher the surface temp. the higher the atmosphere, warm at the surface, cooling with altitude. In principle (steady state) at every altitude, the sum of kinetic and potential energy should be equal.

  25. Hans says:

    BenAW says:
    February 19, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    “My understanding: planet with gravity, surface temp 0K, the atmosphere will be compacted at the surface, at minimum volume.”

    For sure you are right.
    At 0K there are only solids and hence there is no atmosphere. The temperature in the atmospheres of the big planets don´t contain CO2(gas) since it is found only as a solid. There is one “greenhouse gas” less to worry about. Still, there exist a “Greenhouse Effect”.

  26. Stephen Wilde says:

    “I started with: A spinning planet without any pressure differences

    So I miss the point of your remarks.”

    My point was that as soon as one introduces a heat source above a spinning planet with an atmosphere of any composition then temperature differentials will induce pressure variations at the surface causing winds.

    Then, as Hans suggests, the rotation will direct those winds.

    Where those winds interact with surface irregularities one will see the phenomena that you describe such as Foehn and Chinook.

  27. Doug Cotton says:

    No, the GHG will not radiate down and affect the surface temperature in any way. But let me make another point first before explaining this in the second point below.

    Earth’s Core – thermal momentum

    The amount of thermal energy in the core (approx 5,700 deg.C) as well as the mantle and inner crust outweighs the total thermal energy in the oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. As a result, it provides a very stabilising effect on Earth’s climate. It does this for the following reason. The physics relating to the conduction process tells us that, if the surface temperature were to rise to a new mean, say 3 deg.C above the present, then the whole plot of the temperature gradient from the core to the surface would have to rise by 3 deg.C at the surface end. This represents a huge amount of additional thermal energy that would have to be stored to “fill the gap” between the current plot and the new plot. So it takes a lot more energy than would be required merely to warm the oceans. In fact, if it were happening we would see a slowing down of the small trickle of heat flow from the core, or maybe even a net flow into the surface. My main point is that it could take thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. No doubt someone could calculate this, so all we need to do is monitor the terrestrial flow.

    The greenhouse fallacy

    The IPCC model is a flat Earth model and belongs to the days of flat Earth science. The main consequence of their flat Earth concept is that they just look at overall net effects over a 24 hour cycle. They claim that, because there is a net flow of energy from the surface to the atmosphere over 24 hours that net cooling somehow means there is no breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, the real Earth has mornings and evenings. In the mornings the energy in radiation from the Sun is converted to thermal energy in the atmosphere and, mostly in the surface. (Some of the absorption of solar radiation is actually due to so-called greenhouse gases, because about half the Sun’s radiated energy is in the infra-red band. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sends back to space some of the Sun’s radiation, thus having a cooling effect.) However, when the surface is getting hotter and hotter each sunny morning, the IPCC claims that there is additional thermal energy being transported by radiation from a much cooler atmosphere to the much warmer (and still warming) surface. So, even though net radiation is clearly into the surface, they still claim that the cooler atmosphere warms the surface even more. This clearly violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law is still violated even when the surface is cooling because it would still take extra thermal energy to slow the cooling process.

    [Reply] There is no separate day and night when the entire globe is under considerattion. There is always the same surface area in daylight and shadow.

    The very reason the Second Law of Thermodynamics does operate for radiation (as well as conduction) between any two points at any time is that the energy in radiation from the cooler body merely resonates with a warmer body and is effectively scattered without being converted to thermal energy. The end result energy wise is the same as if it had been reflected. One needs to remember that empirical measurements of absorptivity are not normally made with radiation from a very cold source such as the atmosphere, so this may help to understand that such measurements are a function of temperatures of the target as well as temperatures of the emitting source, and thus frequencies of the radiation. All this is substantiated by standard physics but, in addition, has been proved theoretically by Claes Johnson, a well-published Professor of Applied Mathematics in his Computational Blackbody Radiation which is one of the most important documents in the climate debate. http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf

    [Reply] There has been long and contentious debate regarding Claes theory at Judith Curry’s site, which Claes himself took part in. We will not be cluttering the Talkshop’s threads with a re-run here.

  28. BenAW says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:53 am
    “I started with: A spinning planet without any pressure differences

    So I miss the point of your remarks.”

    “My point was that as soon as one introduces a heat source above a spinning planet with an atmosphere of any composition then temperature differentials will induce pressure variations at the surface causing winds.”

    Tim’s claim seemed to be that the mere fact of a planet spinning around it’s axe would create wind.
    Imo this is not the case, as I stated.
    Introducing a heat source to create temp and thus pressure differentials is not relevant for this case.

    “Then, as Hans suggests, the rotation will direct those winds. ”
    Is called corriolis effect. Check out Buys Ballot’s law, is on the same subject. Basic stuff.

    “Where those winds interact with surface irregularities one will see the phenomena that you describe such as Foehn and Chinook.”
    Now you’re loosing me. I was under the strong impression that the Chinook winds are a clear manifestation of the Atmospheric Temperature Effect. Pse explain.

  29. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Introducing a heat source to create temp and thus pressure differentials is not relevant for this case.”

    Tim mentions a dayside and a nightside which requires a heat source doesn’t it ? The illustration also says “illumination is fixed”.

    I was under the strong impression that the Chinook winds are a clear manifestation of the Atmospheric Temperature Effect”

    Isn’t it ?

    Descending air gets warmer as per the Gas Laws and/or ATE. Surface irregularities cause air to rise and fall.

    May I suggest a little more thought before commenting ?

  30. BenAW says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:15 am

    “I was under the strong impression that the Chinook winds are a clear manifestation of the Atmospheric Temperature Effect”

    Isn’t it ?

    Descending air gets warmer as per the Gas Laws and/or ATE. Surface irregularities cause air to rise and fall.”

    So the ATE is the same as the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
    Why does everybody want to rename the DALR.
    N&Z go for ATE, Jelbring favours Dynamic Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
    see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/hans-jelbring-an-alternative-derivation-of-the-static-dry-adiabatic-temperature-lapse-rate/#comment-15299

    Let’s just stick with Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate when we mean Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
    Makes live so much simpler.

  31. Stephen Wilde says:

    N & Z claim that the concept of ATE ‘improves’ on the concept of DALR in some way. I wait to hear more specifics on that but generally I approve of separating the warming effect at the surface out from the DALR and if that involves giving it a specific name then so be it.

    I think it is an improvement on the Greenhouse Effect.

  32. Stephen Wilde says:

    “the energy in radiation from the cooler body merely resonates with a warmer body and is effectively scattered without being converted to thermal energy”

    I think we have each attributed a different meaning to the word ‘scatter’.

    I favour the use of that word because it gets away from the downwelling concept. After all, the energy in the atmosphere is always upwelling, downwelling and sidewelling all at the same time so the alternative idea that it is constantly being scattered in all directions is a useful one.

    That enables us to better envisage that the scattered energy (both conductive and radiative) can acquire a gradient from surface to space with a higher temperature at the surface without the need for a concept of downwelling.

    The truth must be that any energy which is directed downward from any level is almost entirely prevented from hitting the surface as a result of scattering above the surface and so the surface is not directly affected by it.

    On that basis the only radiation (or conduction) that the surface receives excluding that from the sun is from the ambient temperature of the molecules closest to the surface or in contact with it.

    To my mind that pretty much wraps up the downwelling concept ready for the trash bin. It always seemed a bit of a stretch that photons coming from high up in the atmosphere would actually strike the ground unaffected when there is a welter of interactions both radiative and conductive intercepting the photons as the energy tries to make its way down through an increasingly dense atmosphere.

  33. BenAW says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    N & Z claim that the concept of ATE ‘improves’ on the concept of DALR in some way

    Since a parcel of air that has moved up and came down again cooling and warming according to the DALR will have the same temp. after the trip as bedore it started, this improvement must be major if they want to explain a temp. rise of 133K.

  34. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:01 pm
    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    N & Z claim that the concept of ATE ‘improves’ on the concept of DALR in some way

    Since a parcel of air that has moved up and came down again cooling and warming according to the DALR will have the same temp. after the trip as bedore it started, this improvement must be major if they want to explain a temp. rise of 133K.

    If you revisit my earlier posts on this blog about the role of the ocean in the driving of the climate, you’ll see that I’m generally in agreement with your ideas concerning it’s primary role in supporting the surface temperature. Ned Nikolov says pressure has the primary role. How to reconcile these two observations?

    Tim’s planet as outlined in this post doesn’t talk about an ocean, so we can leave it for another thread, but I’ll just say here that I can see a way that both you and Ned are correct.

  35. Stephen Wilde says:

    I think I’ve covered the pressure/ocean linkage here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7798

    “The Setting And Maintaining Of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature”

    Essentially it is atmospheric pressure which sets the system energy cost for a given amount of evaporation which then limits the rate at which previously acquired solar energy can leave the oceans and that in turn sets the equilibrium temperature of the oceans for a given level of solar input.

    The air temperatures are then controlled by the oceans.

  36. tchannon says:

    Update to do with this thread.

    Be warned there is hours of reading referenced.

    I’m tempted to create a new post about a linkage which unknown persons made a little whole ago, but I am hitting Accessibility problems so I cannot appraise the image content well enough.

    Some familiarity with Leroux’s 1983 paper would be useful about the Mobile Polar High.
    (this looks like a copy but I don’t know the parentage, so if you can’t find it maybe try this)

    Turning now to WUWT there is a page to do with the Polar Vortex, where there is a video which ought to be viewed (and does work for me, probably html5). This ends with an SST event, a subject which Erl Happ has written many things about.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/new-wuwt-polar-vortex-reference-page/

    There is mention on that page that something like vortex are present at both Venus poles. Given many planets are on the agenda this is very pertinent here today, suggesting a common major atmospheric feature.

    Erl Happ, superb content, might add some extra context
    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/

    My real trouble is with the ESA content about Venus

    Visually none of the following makes sense, visual problem and technical breakages.
    http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEMYGQEFWOE_0.html
    http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?mission=Venus+Express&type=I

    You’ll have to fight your way into more information and good luck.

  37. Stephen Wilde says:

    Tim did you mean SSW as in ‘sudden stratospheric warming’ event ?

    This stuff about the polar vortices, SSWs, Leroux’s Mobile Polar Highs and the ozone issues dealt with by Erl are very familiar to me as here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.

    which deals with the top down solar effects on climate whereas the link I gave earlier dealt with the bottom up oceanic effects on climate.

    All fully consistent with the N & Z proposals and the Gas Laws and now starting to converge with a lot of comments here.

    [ SST, Sudden.... Yes]

  38. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    If you revisit my earlier posts on this blog about the role of the ocean in the driving of the climate, you’ll see that I’m generally in agreement with your ideas concerning it’s primary role in supporting the surface temperature. Ned Nikolov says pressure has the primary role. How to reconcile these two observations?

    They are two completely different theories imo. N&Z is based on a greybody approach, by using the moon as reference. My approach completely bypasses any GB calculations, since I think they are nonsense for a planet with a serious heat storage capacity like earth.
    If N&Z can explain the oceans temp. by using atmospheric pressure, I’d be amazed.
    Remember surface press. on earth is equal to ~10 m of water.
    The heat capacity of the atmosphere is equal to ~3,2 m water.
    My explanation is the simple one, remeber Occam’s razor?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    I posted my ideas here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/simple-radiative-planet-with-atmosphere-and-reflective-layer/#comment-17637
    so most of it is in one place together.
    Several people are reading them at the moment, I’ll see where this leads.

    I think trying to integrate two incompatible ideas will lead nowhere, so I again propose to make a separate post about my theory and see if it holds.

  39. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ben AW. OK, I took a quick skim of your comments on the other thread. Let’s see if we can work it up into a guest post together.

    Cheers.

  40. Hans says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:15 am

    “I was under the strong impression that the Chinook winds are a clear manifestation of the Atmospheric Temperature Effect”
    Descending air gets warmer as per the Gas Laws and/or ATE. Surface irregularities cause air to rise and fall.”

    This following sentence is important. The gas law by itself does not decide a temperature profile. A quick vertical change of atmosphereic mass will have to follow the DALR since radiation is a relatively slow process. Then you can consider radiation impact as zero over a period less than about half an hour. As you know DALR is approximately dT/dz = -g/Cp.

    The physical situations where you can expect to find DALR (fully) developed on earth are:

    A. Any afternoon above land surfaces when heated air has been lifted for hours.
    B. The flow downwards around Antarctica when cold air from the South Pole area is just “sinking”
    down to the sea level. The windyest areas in the word (average) is found there. Cold air produce by IR radiation on top of Antarctica is flowing downwards following valleys.
    C. The Chinook wind is special. Big air masses on the plain east of Rocky Mountains are moving estwards for some reason. This “sucks” air over the mountain range and the air looses its water content on the west side and descend on the east side producing the Chinooke. It is rather limited to its extent and follows topography.
    D. Well mixt air in prolonged sustained hard wind can show close to an adiabatic temperature lapse rate. I have experienced this myself when skiing in the Swedish mountians in hard constant west wind. The mountain top was frozen and at the lift entrance water was flowing (1200 m altitude difference).

    The energy dissipations process is at work when it gets a chance. Equal total energy per mass unit
    will be the result. When that happens the temperature lapse rate will be approximately DALR equal to -g/Cp.