Stephen Wilde: The ignoring of Adiabatic Processes – Big Mistake

Posted: December 14, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, general circulation, Natural Variation, solar system dynamics

My Thanks to Stephen Wilde, who has submitted this article containing a hypothesis on energy flow in Earth’s climate system.

The Ignoring Of Adiabatic Processes – Big Mistake
Stephen Wilde – December 2012

Abstract:
An attempt is made to reconcile the diabatic and adiabatic processes within a planetary atmosphere and in doing so show how changes in the radiative characteristics of constituent molecules in an atmosphere might not have an effect on the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere and of the surface beneath it.

Applying the proposed scenario would appear to indicate why and how planetary atmospheres adjust themselves to the ideal lapse rate set by gravity despite divergences from that ideal lapse rate within the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
Essentially, the adiabatic and diabatic processes must always match each other on any given planet at equilibrium because they are then of equal size and run at equal speed but are of opposite sign.

The diabatic process results in warming and the adiabatic process rations the supply of PE in the atmosphere flowing back to the surface in the form of KE thereby maintaining the equilibrium temperature set by mass, gravity and insolation.

Mean-Temp-1

If any forcing element acts on the speed of either process alone then
the other process changes its own speed to restore equilibrium.

Equilibrium temperature can only change when a forcing element acts
on both processes together so as to change the amount of energy tied up
in both processes by the same amount.

Only gravity, mass and insolation can achieve that.
The key equation is:
KE + PE = constant.

The established science is that only mass, gravity and insolation can change that constant so if radiative characteristics of GHGs in the diabatic process cause a rise or fall in the atmospheric height then that must be at the expense of either KE (if rising) or PE (if falling) because the constant does not change.
So, the thermal effect of a rise in the atmospheric height must be negated by a fall in KE as KE gets replaced by PE and for a fall in the atmospheric height there would be an increase in KE relative to PE.

The net thermal effect being zero.

For the full article please click here (MS docx format)

____________________________________________

The idea of two separate opposite sign loops (diabatic warming and
adiabatic stabilisation) also works for the early faint sun paradox.

As insolation increased, both loops gained in volume equally and
remained in balance as regards speed of throughput so that stability
was maintained albeit with wider equatorial climate zones and a
higher atmosphere. There would have been a rise in surface temperature from the increasing insolation but nothing like as big as one might have expected because gravity and atmospheric mass would have stayed much the same
thus diluting the effect of the increase in solar power.

The atmospheric mass might actually have declined, partially offsetting the increase in solar power.

The issue of DWIR and UWIR is interesting because one can propose
each of them being equal within the diabatic loop whilst within the
adiabatic loop it is the balance of KE and PE in each molecule at
any given height which sets temperature and not DWIR and UWIR.

Two completely different energy transfer and distribution mechanisms
but being of opposite sign as regards their thermal responses to the same forcing element and both being independently capable of variation they keep each other in check.

If the effective radiating height for DWIR/UWIR changes in the diabatic loop then there is an equal change in the height of KE/PE equilibrium in the adiabatic loop but although each changes height the thermal effects are opposite.

A rise in the effective radiating height for DWIR/UWIR would be a
consequence of warming but that would induce a fall in in the height at which KE and PE are in balance which results in cooling because KE falls as a result of more PE forming
at the expense of KE.

All the action occurs at the heights concerned and is rapid so that
if the surface is affected at all it would only be temporary as the
adiabatic response takes a little time to catch up with the
radiative change.

The only way to invalidate this proposition would involve
demonstrating that equilibrium temperature (as defined by KE plus PE) does not solely depend on mass,
gravity and insolation but that would be inconsistent with the Venus comparison and with established science wouldn’t it?

Comments
  1. I find it encouraging that you, out of so many voices, are assiduously trying to hew to the definitive evidence (my Venus/Earth comparison). You don’t need to respond to this comment because I only stopped by. I only want to inform anyone interested that, so far, I don’t believe in an “effective radiating height” in the atmosphere, and the evidence I would reference is that the UWIR (upward infrared radiation, I presume) at any level, when closely considered, is not a blackbody, or thermal, distribution characteristic of a single temperature (the temperature at that level), despite what deluded academics, who believe unquestioningly in their radiation theory of climate, insist. So when you write, “A rise in the effective radiating height for DWIR/UWIR would be a consequence of warming”, I am tempted to rewrite that (though withholding agreement with it) as, “Atmospheric warming can be thought of as causing a rise in the ‘effective radiating height’ (even though physically there is no such single height)”. Behind this little caveat lies the entire, still-mostly-unplumbed debate over the error(s) in the radiation transfer theory, in particular the understanding that it is causally reversed from the truth, that the temperature (and convection, and conduction) produces the radiation (within the atmosphere), not vice-versa (as I think your wording seems to imply you understand).

    Also, and along the same line of thought, I would suggest that the statement, “A rise in the effective radiating height … would be a consequence of warming but that would induce a fall in the height at which KE and PE are in balance which results in cooling” is a logically muddled, formal proposition (which merely assumes there is such a thing as an “effective radiating height” — not to mention, a particular “height at which KE and PE are in balance”), not a clearly physical statement of actual warming and balancing cooling.

  2. Stephen Wilde says:

    I must admit that the term ‘effective radiating height’ was one which I wasn’t sure about.Perhaps I should have removed it since it isn’t critical to the main issue.

    The point is that, however one describes, it the adiabatic response offsets any thermal effects of GHGs in the diabatic process whether the effect would otherwise have been warming or cooling.

    Shuffing the proportions of KE and PE at varying heights is enough to keep the system stable.

  3. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Stephen; I would describe the terms, KE and PE, in the first paragraph so any reader would be clear of your definitions.

    Any proposition that holds true on Mars and Venus as well as Earth, would seem to me to be solid.
    These three have very different atmospheres as to mass and constituents.

    Your KE/PE balance point should be determinable for any ideal gas and an atmosphere would be the average of its’ constituents based on their percentage in the total.

    I look forward to your expansion of the above proposition. pg

  4. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks PGS.

    If you click on the link to the main article you will see more exposition.

    Rog wanted a snappier post for his site and thought the main article a bit too wordy but I designed it for the general reader on other sites.

    I’m running the proposition here first so that I can get a measure of peer review before spreading it around more.

    I’m pretty sure that it is a significant step forward assuming I am right that the constant is fixed only by mass, gravity and insolation.

  5. Konrad says:

    Stephen,
    Actually the mistake is far bigger and far more basic. Warmist calculations do not take into account that our atmosphere has depth, a pressure gradient and that HOT AIR RISES. If there is no radiative cooling at altitude, the atmosphere will reach extremely high temperatures. Radiative gasses are cool the atmosphere, there is no if, but or maybe.

    Have another look at the warmist calculations. There is no allowance for the vertical movement of heated gasses. This is a game changer. When the importance of radiative gasses to convection is taken into account it is clear that AGW is physically impossible on this planet.

  6. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad.

    As hot air rises the kinetic energy is replaced by potential energy and the temperature falls.

    Potential energy cannot radiate out.

    Before it can radiate out the air has to descend and become compressed again so that the PE is reconverted to KE.

    The effect is greatest at the surface.

    Radiation is not relevant as you say but the reason is that radiation from the sun always equals radiation out from top of atmosphere. Solar input gets a free pass straight through at any given level of mass, gravity and insolation.

    If any forcing element other than a change in mass, gravity or insolation tries to create an imbalance at top of atmosphere it is always offset by an expansion or contraction of the entire atmosphere which transfers KE to or from PE as necessary to maintain equilibrium.

    That is the real game changer,

  7. Brian H says:

    Stephen;
    What is happening 1 meter below ‘TOA’? 1 meter above? How thick is ‘TOA’? I have a very hard time, as hdh implies, imputing any physical reality to the concept.

  8. Stephen Wilde says:

    It doesn’t matter where the top of the atmosphere is or how diffuse it is.

    Any molecule that is still within the Earth’s gravitational field has the same total energy content as any other molecule (including those at the surface) but far more of it is in the form of Potential Energy and so the Kinetic Energy being very small the temperature of that molecule is approaching the temperature of space.

    Only when the molecule drits outside the gravitational field is the Potential Energy lost and by definition that is a point beyond the top of the atmosphere.

    The average temperature of the air in the Adiabatic Atmospheric Loop is determined by the height at which KE and PE are equal.

    The average temperature of the air in the diabatic loop is determined by the height at which Upward Radiation from the planet is matched by Downward Radiation from the sun.

    Both those heights can each change to compensate for a change in the other unless there is an increase in mass, gravity or insolation in which case both are changed together.

  9. Konrad says:

    Stephen,
    You are correct that as hot air rises temperature is converted to PE. You seem to be one of the few who understand that adiabatic cooling on ascent does not represent a loss of energy from an air mass. For vertical convection to continue, a rising air mass must not just cool, it must lose energy to space.

    Hotter gasses lower in our atmosphere do have a better ability to lose energy by radiation to space than cooler gasses higher up. However the vertical convective cycle remains dependant on radiative cooling above the surface. Adiabatic cooling on ascent is matched by adiabatic heating on decent. An atmosphere that can only gain and lose energy by conductive contact with the planets surface will heat to the hottest point of conductive contact with the surface.
    I have shown a very simple empirical experiment on previous threads that demonstrates the critical importance of the vertical position of heating and cooling in an atmospheric column. Tim Folkerts is reluctant to conduct the experiment, however I would urge you to try it, you will find the results are dramatic.

    To conduct the experiment build two insulated boxes with a heating(T1) and a cooling(T2) element inside. Build the heating and cooling elements to be as flat as possible. In Box 1 place the heating element at the base and the cooling element at the top. In Box 2 place both heating and cooling elements at the base with some separation. I used 25mm EPS foam for my boxes and 3mm aluminium water pipes for my elements. Temperature measurement was via K type probes at the centre of each box. Typical results after 15 minutes are –
    – Box 1 temperature = (T1-T2)/2 – CL (conductive losses)
    – Box 2 temperature = T1-CL
    Using cooling water at 1C and heating water at 60C I found the temperature differential between the boxes to be around 25C.

    This experiment shows that the vertical location of actual energy loss from the atmosphere is critical to atmospheric temperature. Without radiative gasses our atmosphere would resemble Box 2. Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere, with water vapour doing the bulk of the work from the mid troposphere. Additional CO2 may in theory cause some slight cooling and higher convection speeds but this would be unmeasurable at current or projected CO2 concentrations.

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    Trying to find where it’s wrong, I can’t see anything obvious. At the same time, it’s a bit theoretical for my tastes and there are few places where things are stated de novo and not proven. (Like that things are in balance… and must stay that way).

    So I’m thinking things like “Why can’t KE just permanently shift. Say it’s warmer at the surface but some other physical process slows convection?” I can’t think of one that WOULD do that, but say as a hypothetical that CO2 formed carbonic solutions in air so slowed the mass transfer up. A chemical shift to diabatic due to the nature of the gas.

    Overall, the basic idea is the same as what I’ve said; that added heat at the ground just makes convection evaporation and condensation run faster (and higher); but more formally stated. So conceptually I agree with it (which means in a critique I need to guard against self confirmation bias) while feeling uncomfortable that some of the specifics are not fully founded.

    Or why can’t more KE be present from, say, a shift of cloud forming tendencies. Hotter surface, more rise but then less clouds formed (due to some unknown gas quirk) and thus more radiation to the suface. Less reflected to space. The thesis kind of stays the same ( that things balance) yet it has an Adiabatic loop change causing a Diabatic loop change and shifting the ‘balance’… A “2 factor” change, if you will. (The infamous “feedbacks”…)

    But I’ve not come up with one yet that is actually physical… I think on it some more…

    I also have a bit of a feeling that phase change is being a bit shorted. At the top of the troposphere water condenses and falls as rain. THAT is the point where IR is radiated. So ideal gas PE / KE exchanges don’t enter it. It’s a phase change problem…

    Not sure how to integrate that into your ‘balance’ method.

    @Brian H:

    TOA is a variable definition. It is defined based on what problem you are working. So TOA for convection is about the Tropopause. TOA for most “Global Warming” thesis purposes is lower stratosphere (below the peak radiative point). TOA for real radiative processes is somewhere above the stratosphere (or maybe mesosphere…)

    That’s why you have trouble with it…

    The “real” top of atmosphere? Could be the heliopause for some circumstances…

    It’s another one of those “not quite right” words used in “Climate Science”…

  11. Physicists look for equations that work for any planetary body with an atmosphere. In this regard Nikolov and Zeller postulated equations using “p” (gas pressure) and TSI as the variables. They did not explicitly include “g” (acceleration due to gravity) as you do.

    I suspect that the N&K equations are consistent with yours.

  12. Trick says:

    Stephen top post – Couple comments. I am short of time, I’ve written much in the other threads , this may seem a bit brusque. Time is limited, one must optimize it. Just back from a hockey game, my team won. I’m cooling off.

    1) There are no adiabatic processes that occur in nature’s atmospheres. They are all diabatic, every one. One can learn by simplifying as I’ve gently nudged you into on other threads. One of the simplifications is to assume temperature is constant in a parcel of air rising & falling quickly enough. In reality, this does not happen exactly, the temp. does change. Stephen’s assumption of adiabatic processes being real causes incorrect conclusions.
    2) Stephen’s “key equation is: KE + PE = constant” misses much of atm. radiative science as I pointed out to Stephen somewhere that total energy = translational KE (i.e. temperature) + rotational KE of polyatomic molecules + vibrational KE of polyatomic molecules + electronic in the electron energy levels within a molecule (including complete separation of electron i.e. ionization) + PE in a gravity force field = constant.

    Stephen exhibits a deep interest in this subject. I again urge you to read a good recent text to get it right, for example Grant Petty sec. 9.1 “Basis for Molecular Absorption/Emission”. Collisions between molecules tend to equalize the distribution of the total energy in a gas parcel among the “storage” mechanisms in 2).

    Pick oxygen. If as Stephen writes, a parcel of O2 molecules somehow had all translational KE to start, but no rotational KE or vibrational KE then subsequent collisions would quickly set many of the molecules to spinning & vibrating again. Before long, the total energy would be distributed between all available storage mechanisms establishing LTE which can be taken for granted over say ~10km of Earth’s lower and middle atmospheres where density is high enough and collisions are quite frequent.

    This assures that knowledge of the temperature of the medium is sufficient to accurately enough predict the distribution of the total energy among all possible KE modes. This also ensures that any radiative energy absorbed or emitted by a medium will quickly give rise to a commensurate change in the physical temperature of that medium.

    By that I mean, a photon of LW IR upwelling from Earth’s surface can get absorbed by atm. CO2 molecule increasing its quantized rotational-vibrational KE (15micron band) and statistically emitted as downwelling IR. Stephen’s top post misses this point entirely and draws incorrect conclusions.

    Stephen correctly concludes “The only way to invalidate this proposition would involve
    demonstrating that equilibrium temperature (as defined by KE plus PE) does not solely depend on mass gravity and insolation.”

    This (well Grant Petty text) invalidates Stephen’s proposition in top post “Only gravity, mass and insolation can achieve that” which misses this rotational-vibrational CO2 KE radiation mode entirely as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. Stephen started “getting” that atm. composition matters by writing “to clarify UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” I urge Stephen to see how that happens exactly by following that up reading Sec. 9.1 above, it is really quite interesting and not too deep, no equations until 9.2.1.

    I’m interested to discuss this stuff, triggers my interest more if Stephen (and others) get up to basic text speed on more than “KE+PE=constant” and move to atmospheric reality & more real radiative physics than an incomplete statement “Only gravity, mass and insolation can achieve that.” My typo.s: as usual no warranty esp. in my current cool down mode.

    Stephen writes in full article lnk: “The similarity between Venus and Earth..is empirical proof.”

    Yes, as I’ve written before, adjusting atm. density for orbits or measuring atm. density from satellite radio occultation experiments, there is empirical proof the P=density*R*T law works the same elsewhere.

  13. Stephen Wilde says:

    I note all the comments so far and thank the contributors for them.

    I don’t see them as affecting the basic point since all the objections or proposed refinements relate only to the complex interactions within an atmosphere and not the grand overview.

    The fact remains that, at equilibrium, solar energy in equals longwave out so one can validly separate that out as a single diabatic loop which effectively gives solar energy a free pass.

    Then we have to deal with the entirely separate adiabatic loop which works independently of the solar in / longwave out radiative process once an air parcel detaches from the surface although I take Trick’s point that there will be some leakage to and fro such that the adiabatic loop could be said to not be perfectly adiabatic.

    However, it is as near adiabatic as makes no practical difference because both loops can vary their speed of energy transmission independently such that forcing elements that act on one loop only are cancelled by an equal and opposite response in the other loop.

    If Trick has a suggestion as to how composition changes can affect the constant rather than just KE or PE then I would be interested to hear it. Remember that we need to explain stability for 4 billion years and the Venus data somehow if anything other than mass. gravity or insolation can change the constant itself for a given planet.

    The text from Grant Petty does not seem to relate to any change in the constant but merely to the equalisation process for KE and PE which is the very process I am talking about but in finer detail.

    The processes described by Grant Petty would simply help to redistribute energy within the vertical column so as to raise or lower the height at which PE = KE thereby validating my proposal.

    If GHGs cause the atmoshere to expand and do not change the constant then PE will increase relative to KE for a cooling effect that offsets any warming effect from the GHGs.

    Higher atmosphere but no change in equilibrium temperature.

  14. Stephen Wilde says:

    A practical problem arises if one allows composition to change the constant.

    The quantities for mass, gravity and insolation are fixed whatever composition does. They cannot adjust in response to a change in composition so as to arrive at a new point of equilibrium.

    So, if composition changes the constant then the resulting imbalance will remain in place permanently or until composition changes again.

    That would lead to a permanent cumulative imbalance leading eventually to the loss of the atmosphere.

    Thus an expansion of the atmosphere beyond that allowed by the ideal lapse rate would mean constant surplus of outgoing energy.
    Too much PE relative to KE with the actual lapse rate too shallow.

    A contracton of the atmosphere beyond that allowed by the ideal lapse rate would mean a constant surplus of incoming energy.
    Too much KE relative to PE with the actual lapse rate too steep.

  15. wayne says:

    Stephen:

    I love general ideas such as this topic, some many things basically correct but yet at face value so many loose ends. I find each statement you make that makes me cringe has an underlying truth but some of your definitions or the missing definitions that science generally uses are amiss.

    So to kick off the peer review here are a few areas needing tied down, and by just tying these down these will make many of your statements, that at first glance seem so wrong, right.

    Unless explicitly stated, an ‘atom’ is either an atom = molecule = atom for brevity and all radiation effects can be totally ignored in dense atmospheres while low and dense. View all radiation as speeding the conduction for that is all it does there until past the TOA and the lapse rate plot curves towards zero.

    [1] KE. You need to state explicitly that you are speaking strictly of the upward, or vertical, or on the ‘z’ axis motion portion of the total KE. Call it vertical KE, or VKE if you like, I’ll use that below.

    [2] PE. State explicitly you are ignoring other bodies. Setting the PE to zero at the surface is just fine, you can set it anywhere, but, PE does not grow indefinitely with height for gravity decreases with height, therefore, you have to define what you mean by saying VKE+PE=constant. This could only occur if NO atoms ever reach the escape velocity and no energy ever transports between levels.

    [3] Your loop is a bit wrong and it is here where VKE+PE=const is definitely NOT a constant. VKE is a portion of the temperature by definition. When an extra warm parcel leaves the ground moving upward that parcel has more KE (temp) than when it returns back down to the surface. That IS the transfer of energy by thermals (ignoring and evap/condensation that is occurring simultaneously)

    [4] Thermals are in all sense (take it from a sailplane pilot) just like super weak dust devils or super weak explosions at the surface. They rise in tight columns constantly shedding heat as they rise (mixing, diffusion) and slowing until they reach the equilibrium point (density) and spread out in an area about 100 to 1000 times the area of the hot thermal core and very slowly sink back to the surface. That areal difference needs in there somewhere, velocity upward >> velocity downward.

    Now with latent heat all is different and you know enough on the meteorological side to extend that thought further.

    That process is the primary transfer of energy upward, I agree.

    —-
    There’s more but how about that for a starters?

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne, useful stuff and I can see how my use of scientific terms might cause professional scientists to cringe.

    But does anything you say affect the issue at the heart of it?

    You say:

    “where VKE+PE=const is definitely NOT a constant. VKE is a portion of the temperature by definition. When an extra warm parcel leaves the ground moving upward that parcel has more KE (temp) than when it returns back down to the surface. That IS the transfer of energy by thermals (ignoring and evap/condensation that is occurring simultaneously)”

    I am not looking at single parcels of air.

    I am considering the atmosphere as a whole. Usually the equation KE + PE = constant is applied to individual molecules so perhaps my novel step is to apply it to an entire atmosphere.

    Now it is clear that what comes down isn’t quite what goes up because of ‘leakage’ from latent heat transfers and radiation directly from atmosphere to space, just as you say, but my point is that what DOES come back down is precisely what causes the surface and indeed the entire atmosphere to reach the temperature that it does.

    Nothing to do with downward radiation, or reduced upward radiation but rather a mechanical process whereby, for a while, energy is held in potential form and therefore beyond the diabatic loop since PE cannot radiate but it is there nonetheless.

    The issue then is:

    Does anything other than mass. gravity and insolation affect the amount of energy that DOES get back to the surface from so called adiabatic warming?

    My contention is that any change that does not involve mass, gravity or insolation immediately triggers an equal and opposite response by changing the speed but not the volume of the adiabatic loop.

    What other explanation has anyone ever offered for the similarity of planetary lapse rates despite vast differences in composition?

    You have been exploring just those surprising facts yourself.

  17. wayne says:

    “But does anything you say affect the issue at the heart of it?”

    That’s it Stephen, you need to more tightly define exactly what the issue is. I see your point buried deep and if I read between the lines. I want to help make your point right so everyone instantly sees it.

    “I am not looking at single parcels of air.”

    I know, but this entire world (day side) is just a million occurrences of what I was explaining. If you look at it too smoothed over there is no concentration of heat at points that cause the convection thermals in the first place.

    “KE + PE = constant is applied to individual molecules so perhaps my novel step is to apply it to an entire atmosphere.”

    I now see, I thought you were speaking of the entire atmosphere’s KE and PE. See how easy it is to get it all confused by not addressing each piece of your idea piece by piece. But lone molecules do not define temperature and therefore temperature differences driving your thought. Define it explicitly. Boring I know, but it does help clarify and put the correct limits on your words.

    “Now it is clear that what comes down isn’t quite what goes up because of ‘leakage’ from latent heat transfers and radiation directly from atmosphere to space …”

    Wait. You’re so close. We are speaking of under the tropopause aren’t we? If so, drop the radiation, it’s only effect is to raise the “conductivity” 10 or more times faster. Conductivity is W/m2 too and usually you just think of atoms bouncing off each other equalizing T differences. But in a HUGE environment and mean path lengths short, relatively, that is all radiation does. So forget it.

    And the “leakage” does not NEED latent heat yet, it is always there to some degree whether it is at a desert or over water but is not absolutely necessary. Latent heat just multiplies this “thermal” process by 10 to 100 times more intense and faster with more energy being transferred per time increment. I was starting at “just the core” idea, latent heat and radiation have their place but not quite yet (my [1] to [4]). Can you see that?

    “Does anything other than mass. gravity and insolation affect the amount of energy that DOES get back to the surface from so called adiabatic warming?”

    When you say “the amount of energy that DOES get back to the surface from so called adiabatic warming”, I have to ask what energy? No net energy gets back to the surface at all, zero wm-2. Not from your di-abatic process loop. Right at the surface there is some downward radiation but that only comes from the bottom 1, or 10, or 100 meters or from the liquid (fog particles) in warm clouds and once again only in the window frequencies, those are the only frequencies that can reach from the clouds to the surface, very little but not zero.

  18. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:31 am: “A practical problem arises if one allows composition to change the constant. The quantities for mass, gravity and insolation are fixed whatever composition does. They cannot adjust in response to a change in composition so as to arrive at a new point of equilibrium.”

    That is no practical or even theoretical problem. Surface temperature simply adjusts to the new atm. composition in LTE. No problem, Earth’s (& Venus’) climate’s been doing that for eons ~4Bln years. Retained the atm.

    Stephen continues: “…if composition changes the constant then the resulting imbalance will remain in place permanently or until composition changes again.”

    What imbalance? No. Just get a new total energy constant. The surface temperature adjusts permanently at new LTE & results in balance not imbalance, no loss of atm. The most probable N2 molecule speed goes up from say 401 m/sec to say 410 m/sec until composition changes again, way below N2 escape velocity of 11,200 m/sec.

    Stephen continues: “…expansion of the atmosphere…contraction of the atmosphere…”

    For a planetary atm. PV=nRT is pretty useless b/c can’t calculate the V and n is pretty big, just think about P=density*R*T. You will get deeper understanding Earth & Venus.

    Stephen 10:08: “If Trick has a suggestion as to how composition changes can affect the constant rather than just KE or PE then I would be interested to hear it.”

    As Stephen wrote so must get this, “to clarify UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.” Petty text tells us some UWIR can get converted to DWIR in the CO2 15micron band which slows the cooling of Earth’s surface (day & night) increasing the total energy constant over what the total energy constant would have been had the UWIR just radiated to deep space.

    There, no mention of KE or PE. Density of atm. is affected by this process (my 7:20am post), so too is P&T, by law on Earth and Venus et. al.

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    “No net energy gets back to the surface at all, zero wm-2. Not from your di-abatic process loop”

    Sorry, wayne but you completely miss the fact that descending air warms as it descends from adiabatic compression and maximum warmth is at the surface.

    Nothing to do with radiation at all.

    Until you realise that you will continue to be puzzled by your findings about the similarity of the temperature profiles in atmospheres with hugely differing compositions.

    You seemed to be getting so close with your previous posts and I have no idea why you have got it so wrong.

    And I am talking about the entire atmosphere, not individual molecules and not merely below the tropopause.

  20. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    The amount of energy that a planetary atmosphere can hold on to from a given amount of solar input is set by atmospheric mass and gravity.

    The combination of mass, gravity and insolation sets the constant.

    PE and KE must match that constant at equilibrium if the atmosphere is to be retained.

    If they do not match that constant the lapse rate will diverge from the ideal lapse rate and the atmosphere will be lost.

    Tell me how composition can freely change the constant without causing a permanent imbalance between PE and KE when gravity and mass and insolation stay the same.

    If you don’t see what I am getting at then there is no more I can say.

  21. Trick says:

    Stephen: “Tell me how composition can freely change the constant without causing a permanent imbalance between PE and KE when gravity and mass and insolation stay the same.”

    Stephen – I did at 7:20am and many times on other threads, surface Tavg. changes KE, no imbalance results, system rebalances. You ask a good question though. Put a control volume say at 100km Earth radius, one definition of TOA. Count the outgoing flux by satellite, the incoming flux across the CV also by satellite. It balances therefore: LTE. Surface Tavg. = 288K stable measured.

    Remember Stephen breathes? Changes O2 into CO2! The balanced UWIR photon which used to encounter an O2 and not get absorbed & the satellite counted it as an outgoing UWIR photon now gets absorbed by Stephen’s new CO2 in new atm. composition, not counted outgoing anymore.

    This photon has the exact quantum of energy needed to be absorbed by the CO2 molecule rotational-vibrational mode (15micron band) and photon emitted statistically into DWIR. This increases DWIR, that means per Stephen writing: “to clarify UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained” that UWIR must increase also to match for LTE thereby retaining the atm. and that is accomplished by higher Tavg. say 292K in my previous thread example – the emissivity of atm. going from 0.8 to 0.82 by Stephen’s breathing.et. al. Atm. gets a little more optically thick in meteorologist terms.

    The total energy constant goes up because the formerly UWIR escaping to space was prevented to do so, keeps being prevented to do so and returned to Earth as DWIR. More energy in control volume, less escaped, a new LTE balance at higher total energy constant (Stephen’s CO2 still there doing its UWIR to DWIR turnaround). Deep space is that much cooler for the loss of the UWIR. Try finding that in the COBE results, lol.

    How many times do I write this in how many ways before Stephen picks up a copy of Petty Sec. 9.1 where all is revealed? No more lapse rate mystery, no imbalance, the atm. will not be lost.

    Stephen continues: “The amount of energy that a planetary atmosphere can hold on to from a given amount of solar input is set by atmospheric mass and gravity…. there is no more I can say.”

    No. Stephen can also say the atm. composition being more or less optically thick matters for satellite control volume LTE and Tavg. at surface. Text book stuff. Dig in Stephen. A wonderful world of atm. radiation molecular emission & absorption discovery awaits. Didn’t even mention H2O rotational-vibrational modes, whoa, there’s a whole lot of those – a triatomic molecule. Geez, and more of ‘em water vapor molecules in lower atm. Have fun Stephen, I was absorbed by that text and emitted to the blogs, ha.

  22. Trick says:

    Stephen 6:43 pm: “…the similarity of the temperature profiles in atmospheres with hugely differing compositions.”

    P=density*R*T and ideal exact lapse rate T/To = (P(z)/Po)^R/Cp operates the same everywhere, so of course find similar T profiles even with hugely differing compositions. Of course, there is no alien physics causing dissimilar temperature profiles, lol.

    Can make decent judgments on exoplanets as we observe more about them, may be even est. surface temperatures pretty close from insolation, orbits & albedo like Soviets did constructing 1st Venera thermometer range guestimated up to 730K.

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    IT would appear that before we can fully examine Stephens PE/KE theorem the behavior of atomic/molecular gasses and energy changes, under gravity, must be understood and agreed to. Assumptions are not acceptable as they prejudice the outcome. If the science works for Mars and Venus as well as the Earth we can be sure that the science is sound and not just “form Fitted” to the Earths’ conditions. The transfer of energy from one atom/molecule to another atom/molecule is determined by distance between them and the energy difference,in them, between them. When the energy level in an atom/molecule reaches a characteristic point it discharges toward deep space. Energy transfer by real conductivity requires intimate contact. In a gas this is not likely, so for argument I would suggest that:

    “Radiation is the agent of energy transfer to and from atmospheric molecules”.
    “The greater the energy content of the molecule, the greater the space it will attempt to occupy”
    “The greater the gravitational effect on an atmosphere the higher the packing density of its’ molecules”
    I am not totally comfortable with the last statement, as gravity is about 97% of surface strength at the International Space Station, above nearly all of the atmosphere. A better explanation of gravity will have to wait. 😉 pg

  24. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    The reason one can have similar temperature profiles with hugely differing compositions is because one cannot allow composition to upset the ideal lapse rate set by gravity acting on mass subjected to insolation.

    I have told you how it works and it is a mechanical process not a radiative process.

    Composition changes can only change the constant in the diabatic loop. The adiabatic lopp adjusts its own constant in an equal and opposite amount so that the true global constant stays exactly the same as that set by mass, gravity and insolation.

  25. Trick says:

    Stephen 8:00 pm – There is no adiabatic loop adjusting the constant in equal and opposite amounts. Simply because there is no adiabatic process anywhere in nature.

    Radiation from the sun is the climate Tavg. driver, Earth is round w/system emitting same amount of radiation to deep space at LTE. Radiation counts. Surface Tavg. changes continuously to keep the control volume radiative balance as needed; get a smooth new global Tavg. constantly but normally released only once a month.

  26. p.g.sharrow says:

    The energy content of a parcel of the atmosphere is generally thought of as the Kinetic Energy of the all the molecules in that parcel and we measure that as temperature of that parcel. This is different then the temperature of the individual molecular temperature. Potential Energy is that provided by gravitational warpage of the dielectric constant in a molecule and is least in freefall and greatest at rest on the planetary surface. The dielectric constant of an atom attempts to center the mass, the nucleus, within the electron shell that is the surface of the atom/molecule. pg

  27. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoops, distracted by a domestic issue mid post.

    Meant to say that if a composition change could change the constant in the diabatic loop it would need to be offset by a change in the constant of the adiabatic loop if the atmosphere were to be retained.

    I know Trick can adjust his radiative only equations to accommodate an increase in the constant but where is the evidence that that is possible in the real world?

    Gravity sets the ideal lapse rate and if the actual lapse rate becomes too steep or too shallow the atmosphere would be lost.

  28. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Surface Tavg. changes continuously to keep the control volume radiative balance as needed;”

    Doesn’t need to if another non radiative process operates in parallel and has a variable throttle.

    Simply changing atmospheric height would change the throttle for the adiabatic loop.

  29. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen Wilde says: “The amount of energy that a planetary atmosphere can hold on to from a given amount of solar input is set by atmospheric mass and gravity.”

    For earth, we know:
    g = 9.8 m/s^2
    m = 5×10^18 kg (or 10,000 kg/m^2 if you prefer)
    I = 1360 W/m^2 at TOA

    Since this is all that is needed to determine the amount of energy that a planetary atmosphere can hold on to, what would be the result of your calculations for earth?

  30. Trick says:

    Stephen – You are more fun than a hockey game right now.

    “I know Trick can adjust his radiative only equations to accommodate an increase in the constant but where is the evidence that that is possible in the real world?”

    Evidence? You want evidence? You can’t handle the evidence. 4Billion years of atm. LTE give or take. And we are here.

    “Gravity sets the ideal lapse rate.”

    It does NOT! Gravity sets the atm. pressures; the resulting pressure(z), gas constant and air specific heat at constant pressure and surface temperature set the ideal exact lapse rate T(p)*. The approximate lapse rate –g/Cp is found from assuming a constant temperature in a quickly rising parcel of air. Never happens in real life but comes close to reality being off only ~20% from exact ideal lapse and ~10% off from real environmental lapse of latest standard atm. in Earth’s troposphere. Close enough for government work.

    Surface temp. global Tavg. changes all the time; there is no variable throttle keeping climate constant other than global radiation flux-in being constantly just about equal to global radiation flux-out. Oh, and there’s weather (from latent heat flux, evaporative cooling, clouds, condensation releasing latent heat, uneven surface heating, oceans, deep oceans, wind, circulation of air & water, snow cover, ice cover, changing optical thickness, varying emissivities…you get the rest of the picture).

    *T(p) = To*(P(z)/Po)^R/Cp

  31. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “The total energy constant goes up because the formerly UWIR escaping to space was prevented to do so, keeps being prevented to do so and returned to Earth as DWIR”

    That assumes that the net effect of GHGs is warming which is now looking unlikely but lets go with it for the moment.

    The constant does not go up because that is set by mass, gravity and insolation which remain the same.

    The total of KE and PE do go up which creates an imbalance with the constant and if maintained that would result in a permanent imbalance which would eventually remove the atmosphere.

    The mere fact that one can have an increase in PE and KE does not mean that the constant also changes. It just means that an imbalance arises which needs compensating for elsewhere if the atmosphere is to be retained.

    Instead, the atmospheric circulation changes in order to change the throughput of energy through the adiabatic process.

    The atmosphere expands which slows down the adiabatic loop creating more PE but less KE for a net cooling effect offsetting the proposed warming effect in the diabatic loop.

    Instead of more DWIR warming the surface we have a reduction of KE being returned to the surface which prevents the surface from warming thereby maintaining the ideal lapse rate on average betweeen surface and space.

    One must get away from the DWIR concept.

    The temperature at any level is a function of the lapse rate which determines the proportions of KE and PE at any given height. Composition variations do alter it in individual layers but not for the atmosphere as a whole.

    There is most KE at the surface and the temperature at the surface is determined by mass, gravity and insolation and not the net balance between DWIR and UWIR.

    The net balance between DWIR and UWIR for the atmosphere as a whole is kept steady by the throttle changes available to the adiabatic loop so the imbalance you rely upon to warm the surface never actually happens.

    Composition changes at one level will affect the actual lapse rate within the layer affected, for example the Stratosphere.

    But if the atmosphere is to be retained that must be corrected for somewhere else in the vertical column.

    The necessary corrections are achieved by changes in the KE / PE balance at different heights which changes air parcel densities so that they move around relative to one another.

    In due course the system settles to a new circulation pattern which preserves the ideal lapse rate set by gravity together with the original equilibrium temperature.

    I don’t think the ideal lapse rate is ever observed in any location or at any level because of the disruptive effects of composition but in the end it all has to balance out to the ideal lapse rate or there would be no atmosphere.

    It is the expansion and contraction altering the proportions of KE and PE that achieves the necessary outcome. A higher atmosphere means more PE and less KE for a cooling effect which offsets whatever compositional change caused the rise in height.

    PE + KE = constant for the atmosphere as a whole.

    The constant being set only by mass, gravity and insolation so only KE and PE can change if there is no change in mass, gravity and insolation.

    PE cannot radiate so more PE and less KE means cooling and vice versa.

  32. wayne says:

    “Sorry, wayne but you completely miss the fact that descending air warms as it descends from adiabatic compression and maximum warmth is at the surface.”

    Of course it warms as it descends, but when it reaches the surface again, it no longer has the excess KE it left with when it was at an abnormally high temperature that caused the buoyancy.

    Stephen, you seem to be trying to warm the surface, not cool it. Are you trying to use this di-abatic process to somehow explain the hypothetical 33 degC boost? At the small areas of the polar caps I can see that. To make up the warmth of the ATE boost, 288K minus ~196 K, all of that is already accounted for by a proper “effective emissivity” of ~0.67, not 1.0 as if a blackbody, the Earth doesn’t loose as much energy as the “consensus” believes at night. See that balanced spreadsheet under https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/emissivity-puzzle-energy-exchange-in-non-vacuums/ . The data is saying that, not me.

    OTOH, even though an averaging radiometer daily reads close to mean ~396 looking downward a few meters above the surface and mean ~333 looking up from the surface (that is reading the bottom 10 to 100 meters of the atmosphere) you might be saying the atmosphere heats and rises or puffs up slowing satellites during the day thereby gaining PE and then collapses back down during the night converting that additional PE to KE (temp). Is that it?

    Your definitions seem a bit vague and we are tripping on each other. Maybe I need to re-read it one more time before proceeding. 🙂

  33. p.g.sharrow says:

    Stephen: because PE causes warpage of the dielectric, I would think that the potential needed for energy radiation from atom/molecule would be decreased in the direction of the warpage. Gravity denied would actually increase downward radiation. Just a thought based on word pictures. Kind of holds energy nearer to the ground. “Gravitational heating” as it were. pg

  34. Trick says:

    Stephen really gets going 9:03pm. “That assumes that the net effect of GHGs is warming…”

    Bzzzzt. No.

    I do not assume anything of the sort. The basic physics shows for step increase in Earth atm. emissivity, the surface Tavg. step increases to keep the system in balance. I assume GHGs are from resident cats with digestive problems. I know there are infrared active gases from experiment, theory, observation, measurement et. al. The system reacts to find a new LTE.

    “The constant does not go up because that is set by mass, gravity and insolation which remain the same.”

    Bzzzzt. No.

    I, once again, tirelessly, point out the constant = translational KE (i.e. temperature) + rotational KE of polyatomic molecules + vibrational KE of polyatomic molecules + electronic in the electron energy levels within a molecule (including complete separation of electron i.e. ionization) + PE in a gravity force field at least & can go up or down.

    The energy constant can change even though mass, gravity and insolation remain the same. Got your copy of Petty yet? Have to account for energy crossing/not crossing the control volume.

    “The total of KE and PE do go up which creates an imbalance with the constant and if maintained that would result in a permanent imbalance which would eventually remove the atmosphere….PE + KE = constant for the atmosphere as a whole.”

    Bzzzzt. No.

    There is more global atm. molecular avg. translational KE at surface now than say 100 years ago, roughly and courageously measured by thermometers. PE = 0 at surface so KE+PE at surface = higher constant than 100 years ago so NOT constant even though mass, insolation and gravity are the same. KE at surface changes with every monthly announcement and PE = 0 at surface. The constant MUST change, found by control volume accounting.

    After eons, atm. is still here, the surface Tavg. changes to restore balance. Some actually think they can measure paleo temperature absolutes & variations. I am not shocked SHOCKED! or surprised at all past temperatures are not necess. Tavg.= 288K. Climate change happens.

  35. p.g.sharrow says:

    Vibrational energy KE, sets the size of the area that a atom/molecule wants to occupy and therefore an increased energy results in less weight for the space it occupies. gravitational warpage would cause greater lift as energy is directed down. At some point the atom/molecule will be in freefall, the center of mass will be centered and radiation will be equal in all directions. pg

  36. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “There is more global atm. molecular avg. translational KE at surface now than say 100 years ago, roughly and courageously measured by thermometers”

    There has been some surface warming due to changes in sunlight getting into the oceans as a result of separate mechanisms but I don’t expect that to remain long term. It is simply an aspect of internal system variability.

    The sticking point appears to be as to whether mass, gravity and insolation put a top limit on the proportion of any given level of solar energy that can be retained. If they do then that provides a constant.

    If your position is that they do not then I will be unable to make progress with you.

  37. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne.

    I am trying to account for surface warmth whilst allowing the system flexibility to remain stable despite a wide range of compositional changes.

    Descending air does get closer to the temperature at which it rose than you seem to think but I am not in a position to prove the proportion of energy lost from the water cycle and direct outward radiation from GHGs.

    One can envisage a non GHG planet with a completely non radiative atmosphere and in that case ALL the energy taken upward has to be returned to the surface in order for it to be radiated out to space.

    I think there is a very widespread misapprehension of adiabatic processes in the atmosphere which I don’t think I am going to be able to overcome any time soon.

  38. Truthseeker says:

    Stephen,

    Are you and Doug Cotton saying the same thing?

    http://principia-scientific.org/PROM/COTTON%20PROM%20paper%20PSI_Planetary_Surface_Temperatures.pdf

    Just asking …

  39. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:43 pm: “If they do then that provides a constant.”

    If? Appears you are uncertain of your position.

    This stuff is not my position, it is the text book science, the experimentally sound atm. radiative balance physics. Mass counts transiently not so much at LTE. Gravity is usually considered constant. Insolation for purposes of understanding the basics is just considered constant, good enough to start, not so good longer term.

    Now what about molecular absorption/emissivity importance in retaining a given level of solar energy? Atm. optical thickness? Consideration of these processes is important for understanding changes affecting global near surface Tavg. if you are to make progress.

  40. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:52pm: “One can envisage a non GHG planet with a completely non radiative atmosphere and in that case ALL the energy taken upward has to be returned to the surface in order for it to be radiated out to space.”

    “Energy taken upward” doesn’t have to be returned, the surface radiates straight thru this hypothetical atm. with emissivity = absorption = 0 to deep space.

  41. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    “Energy taken upward” doesn’t have to be returned, the surface radiates straight thru this hypothetical atm. with emissivity = absorption = 0 to deep space
    —————————————
    Trick,
    You, like many others seem abnormally concerned with radiative processes in the atmosphere while ignoring conduction and convection. The “Energy taken upward” that Stephen refers to is of course energy acquired by atmospheric gasses via conduction with the earth’s surface and moved upward by convection. This will still happen in an atmosphere without radiative gasses.

    What is important to note about this hypothetical atmosphere is that it will be far, far hotter than an atmosphere containing radiative gasses. I have shown you and Tim Folkerts the simple empirical experiment that proves this, although I understand that AGW supporters are allergic to empirical experiments.

    My experiment is sufficient to show that AGW is physically impossible, so I have chosen up to now not to cover the issues surrounding the very small amount of radiation N2 and O2 are able to absorb and emit. The experiment shows that a non radiative atmosphere would be far hotter than an atmosphere containing water vapour and CO2, but this is only part of the picture. If you were to remove CO2 and water vapour from the atmosphere then the heating would be so great that much of the atmosphere would be lost to space. The reason is that as N2 and O2 are poor absorbers of solar radiation they are also poor emitters of IR. This means that while they heat far slower than CO2 when exposed to solar radiation, they heat to a far higher equilibrium temperature. These temperatures are evidenced in the thermosphere which has few strong radiative gasses.

    Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere. AGW due to the addition of radiative gasses is therefore physically impossible.

  42. Robert Monical says:

    Hi Stephen, I read your paper and started to mark it up but I think trick nails it. Your fundamental assertion needs a huge amount of development.

    I had two thought experiments.
    1. Assume a steady state condition where all molecules are motionless and in their lowest vibrational/rotational energy state. I assume all energy in the system is PE. One molecule absorbs a photon and enters a higher vibrational state – I think the PE did not change but the KE incremented by the amount of the photon’s energy. I think the system is still in equilibrium.

    2. What you are essentially saying is that there is no greenhouse effect. My thought experiment here is a CO2 molecule absorbs an upwelling IR photon and re-emits it in a downward direction. I cannot for the life of me make a distinction between that quanta of energy coming from the CO2 molecule and one coming from the sun.

  43. Max™‮‮ says:

    Two things, the atmosphere does indeed “puff up” during the day, it’s called the diurnal bulge.

    Also, a gas cloud collapsing due to gravity can (and must) lose energy while the temperature increases.

    Radiation carries a lot of entropy away.

  44. p.g.sharrow says:

    Excellent point Konrad; Without water/H2O to carry or transport energy from the surface to the Tropopause, Earth Would be a slightly cooler twin of Venus. It’s the water that regulates the Earths’ surface temperature! It’s the salty Oceans that creates the breathable atmosphere by acting as a fume scrubber to wash the atmosphere of contaminants and create an Oxygen rich environment. The initial argument should be about the effects of the H2O gas atmosphere, as the only contribution of the oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere is, the oxygen sets the vapor pressure on the H2O that determines the temperature points of boiling and freezing. After that, the conditions set by Oxygen and Nitrogen can be added, followed by the minor gasses. Oh! CO2, just an asterisk is needed for the tiny contribution of this plant nutrient. pg

  45. Stephen Wilde says:

    Truthseeker.

    Doug Cotton’s contentions are very similar but I think he goes wrong in relying on simple diffusion rather than adiabatic processes.

    Konrad and pgs

    Agreed that an atmosphere with no radiative capability would get very hot and that water vapour and other GHGs on Earth mitigate that effect considerably such that the circulation needs to work far less hard in order to maintain equilibrium.

    As to whether it would necessarily get so hot as to escape to space I’m not so sure. That would depend on how effective the adiabatic process alone could be in extremis and I’m not sure on that.I think that on balance the atmosphere would be retained but the adiabatic circulation would need to be fast enough with very strong winds.

    With regard to the oceans their effect seems to be linked to surface pressure as well for reasons both I and tallbloke have expressed previously.

    However, for the purposes of this thread, that is all internal to the system and does not directly affect my point that nothing other than mass, gravity and insolation can affect equilibrium temperature. Anything else is simply negated by circulation changes using the mechanism that I have specified.

    Trick.

    In my initial post I made it quite clear that the whole issue turns on whether features other than mass, gravity and insolation can affect equilibrium temperatures of planetary atmospheres out in the real universe.

    All you are doing ad nauseam in your comments and equations is making the assumption that they can. Unless you can prove it you are wasting everyone’s time here.

  46. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad and pgs

    The atmosphere on a planet with an atmosphere but no GHGs would have the same equilibrium temperature overall as one with GHGs if mass, gravity and insolation remain the same but far larger temperature contrasts between the day and night sides than on a planet with GHGs. Those contrasts would still be less than those on a planet with no atmosphere.

    If the circulation can control those contrasts the atmosphere will be retained, otherwise not.

  47. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 17, 2012 at 9:34 am
    “Konrad and pgs
    The atmosphere on a planet with an atmosphere but no GHGs would have the same equilibrium temperature overall as one with GHGs if mass, gravity and insolation remain the same but far larger temperature contrasts between the day and night sides than on a planet with GHGs. Those contrasts would still be less than those on a planet with no atmosphere.
    If the circulation can control those contrasts the atmosphere will be retained, otherwise not”
    ——————————————————

    Stephen,
    I would have to disagree with this and I would again urge you to try the empirical experiment I have described. For an atmosphere of compressible gasses with a vertical pressure gradient it is of vital importance at what altitude cooling can occur. If all heating and cooling occurs only by contact with the planets surface, then the atmosphere will heat to the hottest point of conductive contact with the surface. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to convective circulation.

    In a non radiative atmosphere there would be far larger contrast between SURFACE temperatures between the day and night sides of the planet similar to those found on the moon. However the speed of conduction is so low in the atmosphere compared to the diurnal cycle that this would not translate into significant changes in the diurnal temperature range of a non radiative atmosphere more than a few meters off the surface.

    I know it seems an unbelievably simple mistake to forget that hot air rises, but this is exactly what the AGW believers have done. There is no provision in their calculations for the vertical movement of energy via the physical movement of air. The vertical convection cycle is not physically possible without a cooling mechanism at higher altitude than the heating mechanism. Adiabatic cooling cannot be this mechanism as it does not represent a true loss of energy. Adiabatic cooling is matched by adiabatic heating on decent. The only way for vertical convective circulation to continue is radiative cooling at altitude.

    It does not matter that the night surface of a planet without radiative gasses may be colder than present. Without cooling at altitude there is no way for heated gasses that have risen to return to conductive contact with the surface. If you build the experiment I have describe you can even test the effects of the diurnal cycle. Keep the cooling flow constant and make the flow of heating water intermittent. All that happens is that box 1 reaches a lower equilibrium temperature while box 2 reaches near the same higher temperature as before (slightly less due to conductive losses through the insulation). The temperature differential between the boxes is actually greater in the intermittent heating scenario.

  48. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to convective circulation.”

    Surely only a lapse rate is critical to convective circulation because that creates the decline of temperature with height that allows air parcels to rise ?

    A lapse rate is a result of gravity because gravity determines the weight of the atmosphere above any given point and thus the upward decline in density.

    Moving up results in less and less weight pressing on the air parcel which then expands and cools as KE is converted to PE.

    As soon as there is upward movement in one location there is downward movement in another and then you have the necessary circulation.

    No need for radiation from anywhere except at the surface.

  49. Trick says:

    Stephen 8:58 am: “…the whole issue turns on whether features other than mass, gravity and insolation can affect equilibrium temperatures of planetary atmospheres out in the real universe….prove it.”

    Textbook atm. radiative and atm. thermodynamic physical science, satellite observations, surface thermometer measurements, and many spacecraft probes reasonably prove physical process features other than mass, gravity and insolation can affect equilibrium temperatures of planetary atmospheres out in the real universe. Just check them out in detail; I’ve posted subsets of the proof above and in other threads. Seek proof and ye shall find.

    Or what would Stephen accept as proof exactly?

    Konrad 3:57 am: “Trick, You, like many others seem abnormally concerned with radiative processes in the atmosphere while ignoring conduction and convection.”

    No energy from convection or conduction process has escaped Earth control volume at TOA to deep space. Well, except for the hydrogen, some helium and spacecraft that reached escape velocity and departed long ago. The atm. conduction and convection serve to transport heat within a control volume at TOA, they are internal weather fluxes and do not cross the control volume meaning accounting for their energy gain or loss to Earth system global surface Tavg. is irrelevant; radiation flux-in and flux-out is not irrelevant for near surface global Tavg. as crosses the TOA control volume.

    Now change the atm. composition and affect TOA control volume flux-in and flux-out which then becomes relevant.

    Konrad continues: “…this hypothetical atmosphere is that it will be far, far hotter than an atmosphere containing radiative gasses.”

    For me to agree for discussion purposes, back that assertion up & show me ref. textbook physics. Until then I disagree with your assertion since the hypothetical surface not receiving insolation would efficiently radiate the inefficiently conducted hypothetical non-radiating atm. heat directly to 2.7K deep space w/o clouds (arctic & antarctic regions get cooler). The hypothetical surface Tavg. would be far cooler than today as flux-out would be much higher and flux-in about the same. Initially global surface Tavg. about 33K cooler. Insolation would not affect atm. T except by conduction from surface.

  50. Stephen Wilde says:

    Interestingly, I’ve done a short search for the ways to calculate the equilibrium temperatures of planets and so far have been unable to find confirmation of atmospheric mass as a relevant variable at all.

    Only the radiative characteristics of specifically greenhouse type gases get included in the calculations.

    In contrast, a number of sources refer to atmospheric density as being relevant which implies that mass is a major factor but those sources do not go on to set out any calculations based on atmospheric mass.

    I clearly recall from before the AGW scare that mass was then regarded as a primary factor.

    Something odd has happened to what was once settled science.

  51. wayne says:

    “I am trying to account for surface warmth whilst allowing the system flexibility to remain stable despite a wide range of compositional changes.”

    Stephen, on the lifting of the atmosphere during the day and lowering at night. This is were some of it will be found, the energy that is.

    Here’s a curious figure, let’s assume that the atmosphere is heated and “puffed up” in volume on the dayside so that at the 500 mb level it is raised 54 meters. Higher up than 500 mb the raising will be even more and below the 500 level, it will be less, eveen zero lift at sealevel and momotonically increasing with height.

    I picked the 500 mb level because exactly half of the mass is both above and below here and the computation becomes trivial. You have about 10300 kg/m2 of mass per column, 5150 kg at the mid point. Lets use PE = mgh.

    5150 [kg] * 9.8 [m/s2] * 54 [m] = 2,725,380 [J/m2]

    But this occurs over a 12 hr period so divide by 43200 seconds to get a rate per second and move to W/m2

    2,775,85000 [J/m2] / 43200 [s] = 63 [W/m2]

    That is iff the atmosphere does in fact lift it an average of 54 meters at a 5500 meter height every day. This can be scaled if we can get an accurate figure that differs.

    What that means at that hand-picked 54 meters is, there would be enough energy stored in the PE during the daytime to totally cancel the 63 W/m2 lost during the night in the radiative window frequencies and that is probably where much or all of the missing energy si found to keep the surface at a nice ~288K temperature instead of being much colder ~195K like the moon.

    Max should try to wrap that into his spreadsheet model.

  52. Stephen Wilde says:

    “What that means at that hand-picked 54 meters is, there would be enough energy stored in the PE during the daytime to totally cancel the 63 W/m2 lost during the night in the radiative window frequencies and that is probably where much or all of the missing energy is found to keep the surface at a nice ~288K temperature instead of being much colder ~195K like the moon.”

    That sounds more like it. Thanks.

    A diurnal pumping action within the adiabatic loop would serve very well.

    There would be a seasonal one too of course, and a similar but much smaller such response to all forcing elements on differing timescales.

  53. tallbloke says:

    Can’ t keep up with the flow but it looks like some excellent progress is being made here and on the other threads. Keep it coming.

    Tim Cullen and I have a bombshell post to put up at the weekend. Trenberth isn’t going to like it…
    🙂

  54. wayne says:

    Stephen, in fact if you look at http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_cont.php?plot=500&inv=0&t=cur and look at the current to the -12hr plot, or -12hr to -24hr, you will see an up and down booble of approximately 60 meters at most locations 12 hours apart. That is very rough but it seems my wild guess of 53 meters is not too far off from reality.

    Bingo! There is your daily PE battery in the atmosphere. Recharged during the day, discharged at night to help equalize the temperatures between the two. Yeah it’s just 50-80 W/m2 but you really cannot ignore it. It automatically decreases the diurnal range with no radiation flux involved in the storage. Kind of like a “radiation battery” isn’t it.

  55. Stephen Wilde says:

    Rog.

    Looking forward to it.

    In the meantime I guess what has happened is that a few decades ago a few influential astrophysicists hit upon the radiative greenhouse effect because as astrophysicists they knew little or nothing about the mechanical non radiative processes within atmospheres.

    Up to that point it had all been mass based but they had observed changes in climate with no changes in mass so they junked it all and started rewriting the textbooks.

    They didn’t appreciate the historical variability of climate either so the concept of internal system variability was unknown to them.

    Whilst warming continued they were on a roll and making pots of money too.

    Now that the past warming has stopped and possibly reversing they are in difficulty.

    Only a return to the earlier mass based explanation for the Greenhouse Effect will get climate science back on track.

    Poor Trick has swallowed the whole thing hook,line and sinker as have many others.

    Still thinking through wayne’s last post and liking it more and more 🙂

    He has shown that shuffling KE and PE to and fro could well be the most powerful stabilising influence we have in the air which still leaves us with another surface pressure based process in the oceans to underpin everything.

  56. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Bingo! There is your daily PE battery in the atmosphere. Recharged during the day, discharged at night to help equalize the temperatures between the two. Yeah it’s just 50-80 W/m2 but you really cannot ignore it. It automatically decreases the diurnal range with no radiation flux involved in the storage. Kind of like a “radiation battery” isn’t it.”

    Brilliant, wayne.

    Just what I needed.

    Nothing to do with IR at all.

    GHGs let more radiation out to space than non GHGs would have done and in the process the atmosphere expands.

    The expansion produces more PE at the expense of KE. Less KE at the surface gives less convection, evaporation and radiation which offsets the effect of the GHGs so that the circulation needs to work less hard to maintain equilibrium.

  57. wayne says:

    “Just what I needed.”

    Thought so. 😉

  58. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 17, 2012 at 11:31 am
    “As soon as there is upward movement in one location there is downward movement in another and then you have the necessary circulation.”
    —————————————————–
    From my experiment I found this is not so. What happens in box 2 is that this convective circulation initially occurs and then slows and stagnates. Try to visualise the air column in the box as five layers, 1 being the closest to the base. Initially at the start heated air from layer 1 rises to layer 5 replacing the 20C air there with 60C air. However when layer 5 is all at 60C then the heated air from layer 1 starts to displace the air from the next layer down, layer 4. This process continues with the hight of the convective loop getting lower and lower until circulation between the hot and cold elements at the base of the box becomes restricted by surface friction along the interior base of the box. Slight convective circulation does still occur due to conductive losses through the insulation, however this does not effect the outcome of the experiment. At flow speeds of 1 litre a minute through the heating and cooling tubes conductive equalisation of the gas in the box is also a negligible factor, just as it is in our atmosphere.

    I know it seems unbelievable that such a simple mistake as forgetting that cooling at altitude is vital to convective circulation totally negates the AGW hypothesis, especially when over $100 billion has been spent on the issue, but this appears to be the mistake that the believers have made. They forgot that hot air rises, it really is that simple.

    (Stephen, I did try to post this last night however it did not seem to get through)

  59. wayne says:

    Stephen, slow down.

    “Nothing to do with IR at all.”

    It has everything to do with IR! The IR is the “electrons” in this “radiative battery”. The lead and acid is the atmosphere’s PE, yes, that is not radiative based storage at all.

    “GHGs let more radiation out to space than non GHGs would have done and in the process the atmosphere expands.”

    Scratch expands and replace it with contracts when GHGs are letting more radiation to space. That is speaking of nighttime.

    The GHGs are always leaking energy to space, day and night. It is the fact that during the day the insolation is 341*2 or 682 W/m2, zero insolation at night. Don’t think in K&T’s logic, split the day and night, the day is now twice as hot as before on K&T’s graphic and THAT extra energy is what charges the PE “battery” instead of all energy having to exit to space by radation during the daytime, no thermal inertia. The ground and top of the oceans also act as “batteries” storing the thermal inertia. Instead of one “battery”, we now have about three.

  60. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad,

    Try it with a rotating sphere open to space with a point source of energy and an uneven surface.

    I do however agree that AGW theory takes no adequate account of convection.

  61. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    “For me to agree for discussion purposes, back that assertion up & show me ref. textbook physics”
    ————————————————————-
    Trick,
    My assertions are made on the basis of empirical experiment. No text in any book, no chalk on any blackboard and no bits in any computer can ever top that. The experiment is simple, cheap and easily repeatable by others. For as little as $150 and some careful assembly you too can know that AGW is physically impossible. (Warmists may need a parent or a responsible adult to help with the scissors.)

    Type is cheap. What possible excuse do you have for not doing the experiment?

  62. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne,

    I meant that the storage facility is nothing to do with IR but of course it translates into a method of regulation of outgoing IR as you say.

    I agree about the ground and oceans but tend to discount the ground for longer term climate purposes because its effect is all done within a single day.

    The sign of the effect of GHGs as regards expansion or contraction of the atmosphere is an interesting issue.

    GHGs whilst floating about in the air do carry more energy than non GHGs so I think that the air must expand in order to convert more KE to PE.We can see that in the way water vapour in the troposphere and ozone in the stratosphere distort the lapse rate away from the ideal slope set by gravity.

    However, the expansion is accompanied by faster radiative loss to space from those same molecules and the effect of that faster radiative loss adds to the effect of putting more KE in PE form to reduce heat at the surface which slows down the non radiative adiabatic loop (which includes all weather phenomena within it).

    One gets a larger volume of atmosphere containing more energy in total but with a slower circulation for a net zero effect on equilibrium temperature.

    But the circulation will only slow down just enough to compensate for the easier loss of energy upward from the atmosphere. Whatever happens to the radiative flow or the KE / PE transition the circulation adapts to it and maintains top of atmosphere balance.

    If instead, the atmosphere were to contract then KE would increase at the expense of PE and surface temperature would rise with a faster non radiative loop AND faster radiative losses to space which would compound each other rather than offsetting each other.

    Remember that it is a zero thermal effect from GHGs that I propose but at the expense of a reconfigured circulation.

    I’m still open to persuasion on those points though because so far I have spent most of my time getting to first base and I haven’t yet worked out all the details.

  63. Max™‮‮ says:

    Heck, for cheaper than that I just did an interesting one.

    Two styrafoam boxes with removable lids, windows cut in the top for radiation to enter and leave through a sheet of plastic, one box vented, one not.

    Inside was a thermometer and a plastic bin. The vented box had water in the bin, the other was dry.

    It’s difficult to control for CO2 levels, I’m thinking I might put a bottle of soda sealed in a bag in each one, one bag with normal air, the other with the air squeezed out, sealed shut, and then open the soda enough to inflate the bag and reseal the bottle.

    Placed them under the lights in the bathroom, a row of four sockets, ran it for an hour (and later 2 hours) with 2 x 60 watt bulbs above the boxes and did data collection, reset the temperatures and let the room cool, then ran it for half an hour (and later 1 hour) with 4 x 60 watt bulbs above the boxes and did data collection.

    Starting at 72 F (had F and C thermometers in an outdoor experiment, but the dog actually ate my homework and ruined them… little jerk) the 120 W runs would get up to 75 or 77 after half an hour and peak around 79 or 80. The 240 W runs would get up to 84 or 85 after half an hour and end around 75.

    If I prevented convection I noticed that though the 240 W run would peak quite a bit higher than the other box, it would still get a similar average as the 120 W run.

    On the other hand, the vented box, and later the vented box with water inside showed an interesting trend of around 2 degrees cooler than the unvented box, and the 120 W runs averaged about 3 degrees cooler than the 240 W runs.

    I guess that the ability to evaporate water/higher heat capacity of water vs blocked convection and dry air suggests that some earlier runs I had with a CO2 bag (originally I held a lighter under a bag until it began to lift/inflate then sealed it with hot air inside, going off the knowledge that a cigarette lighter produces mostly H2O and CO2 as combustion products) weren’t flukes. The presence of a CO2 bag changed the results and tended to be almost a degree cooler than the box with just a bag full of air.

    Could it be that adding more ways for heat to be distributed within the box produced a lower temperature?

    Hmm…

  64. wayne says:

    Stephen, I’m not saying you don’t understand it, just that sometimes I read your words and OTHERS will mis-understand it if they take it verbatim. Often my replies to you is just that, clarification, no personal meant and I should state that. From now on I’ll try to add: “Stephen, heres some clarification(s)”.

  65. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 17, 2012 at 8:40 pm
    Konrad,
    Try it with a rotating sphere open to space with a point source of energy and an uneven surface.
    ———————————————————
    Stephen,
    Actually it is possible to do something very close to this even at the bottom of our gravity well. What is needed is a centrifuge drum shaped like a doughnut cake tin with the model earth surface on the inner face of the drum. The central core of the drum would be a clear potassium chloride salt cylinder. The inner top and bottom surfaces of the drum are highly reflective and insulated. In the central core a SW radiation source and a cylinder of matt black, cryo cooled IR absorbing aluminium. The drum would need to be spun up to speed to generate a significant pressure gradient across the internal gas volume. The IR absorber and light source would be spun to a slightly slower speed to simulate diurnal cycle. Oceans (with dye to increase opacity) would need to be filled after the drum is at speed. Done right, almost all processes in our atmosphere could be modelled including clouds and rain. All that is needed is around $1 million in climate science grant money and I don’t think Mann is letting go of that any time soon.

  66. Trick says:

    Stephen 7:46 pm: “Poor Trick has swallowed the whole thing…”

    Dang those professors hooking me. They had me drinking the science kool-aid too, lol. Came close to actually getting a 100% on a physics exam, except I did a bit of (correct!) long hand division in the margin and the TA drew a red arrow pointing to it, subtracted 1 point and wrote: “Get a calculator.”

    You need to drive a 20ton truck across a 500 foot high crevasse ice bridge in Northern Greenland last successfully used at max. wt. 100 years ago and the sign says “Good to 20tons based on a blog poster at TB that says no GW”, you gonna’ attempt it? or 1) wait to check with an ice bridge licensed civil engineer or 2) build & run a finite element program yourself?

    I’d say 1) or 2) works better for me. There just might have been a bit of warming lately even though mass, gravity, and insolation are constant.

  67. wayne says:

    PS: I used 5150 kg for the mass lifted an avearge of 54 meters and re-thinking, I believe it should have been double that value, the whole 10300 kg. So possibly that 63 wm-2 should have been 126 wm-2 — a BIG “radiative battery”. I really need to integrate that entire thought later. My calculus is always in slow mode since I rarely needed it at work, a bit rusty.

  68. Trick says:

    Konrad 8:54 pm: “Type is cheap. What possible excuse do you have for not doing the experiment?”

    As far as I can see, your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the physics of increasing polyatomic molecules in a planetary atmosphere increasing atm. optical thickness emissivity absorbing UWIR in their rotational-vibrational KE mode and statistically emitting DWIR nearby the 15micron IR band increasing near surface global Tavg. by slowing the surface cooling day & night as measured by thermometers. See my post above 12/16 7:20 am.

    If experiment does have something to do with that quantum process I don’t see, fill me in.

    And type is NOT necessarily cheap when it is based on hours spent with nose in atm. thermodynamics and atm. radiation texts. Plus pulling some papers of the masters like Gibbs, et. al. & Venus radio occultation experiments measuring the atm. refraction and computing the atm. density to get alien P,T fields.

  69. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne.

    No problem, I’ve been taking your comments in the spirit intended and your figures for the PE battery were very helpful as I said. Even if they need to be firmed up a bit it shows the potential power of changes in heights to affect speed of throughput and counter opposing forces.

    Trick.

    You’ve learned what you were taught very well but it was a dead end.

  70. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:39pm: “…(learning) was a dead end.”

    Got a chuckle out of that. I would be asking for my tuition back except what I grudgingly learned has been amazingly useful when applied to economically build & cross bridges safely, solve issues & problems. I thank most of my teachers – the ones I could communicate with anyway, some were Martians AFAIK.

    You debate stuff here actively not passively – that’s cool, it is a talkshop. Make me justify every assertion, every eqn. Try to show I am wrong; if not accept what I write may be at least provisionally true. Thermodynamics, a hoary topic, deals with equil. states (despite the “dynamics” term – a tragicomic relic) & transient states not grist for the mill, many miss that, Gibbs did not.

    Richard Lewontin has written better than me, from 1997 book review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”:

    “First, we are told that science “delivers the goods.” It certainly has, sometimes, but it has often failed when we need it most. Scientists and their professional institutions, partly intoxicated with examples of past successes, partly in order to assure public financial support, make grandiose promises that cannot be kept.”

    “Second… it is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data, intolerant of assertions without adequate evidence….to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out. People believe a lot of nonsense about the world of phenomena, nonsense that is a consequence of a wrong way of thinking.”

    “…masses… believe, like the Evangelist John, that the truth shall make you free. But they are wrong. It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth.”

    http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

  71. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    The experiment works wholly on conductive and convection. Radiative physics are irrelevant to the physics being demonstrated. The experiment simply shows how vital energy loss at altitude is to the temperature of an atmosphere heated at the surface via conduction.

    On earth energy loss at altitude is via radiative gasses sending IR to space. Without these gasses our atmosphere would cook. Adding more CO2 cannot cause warming in a convective atmosphere. It’s that simple.

  72. Max™‮‮ says:

    The atmosphere slows the warming during the day, Trick.

    This is obvious when you look at the lag between peak insolation and peak temperature.

    It then slows the cooling during the night.

    I would expect there is little lag between peak insolation and peak temperature on the moon.

  73. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:00am: “Adding more CO2 cannot cause warming in a convective atmosphere.”

    Infrared-active gasses can do so since they slow the global cooling to deep space of the surface night and day by the molecular absorption/emission physics I posted above. Of course, that changes the convection but even so the convection has no affect on the flux-in vs. flux-out LTE balance of the control volume at TOA since the convection does not cross it to deep space. Satellites measure a global constant, stable LTE flux-out with flux-in despite strongly varying convection at times. And of course, in addition, mass, insolation and gravity are constant.

  74. tchannon says:

    Don’t forget the very important temperature inversions.

  75. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 18, 2012 at 12:19 am
    ————————————————
    Do you have an empirical experiment to show that a non radiative atmosphere heated and cooled only via conductive contact with the surface will be cooler than one with radiative gasses that allow cooling at altitude? No?

    I have an empirical experiment that shows that a non radiative atmosphere heated and cooled only via conductive contact with the surface will be hotter than one with radiative gasses that allow cooling at altitude.

    It does not matter HOW heating and cooling occur in our atmosphere, it matters WHERE the heating and cooling occurs. AGW believers so frequently claim “it’s basic physics” but they have got the most basic of physics totally wrong. They did not include the vertical circulation of gasses in their calculations, and nor have you.

  76. Trick says:

    Max 12:13 am – “The atmosphere slows the warming during the day, Trick.”

    I have to see terms in eqn.s to use queen’s English correctly. Heat eqn.:

    1) Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0 at LTE control volume around surface & atm.
    Applied to Earth, with atm. emissivity = 0.8 global avg. and surface at 1.0 for simplicity:

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

    Rearrange math:

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

    You have to watch the second law at LTE, the heat eqn. 1) shows DWIR process reduces the UWIR therefore a slowing of the cooling process during the day also. Math rearrangement 2) shows DWIR adds to insolation flux-in increasing the warming during the day but DWIR can’t be said to increase warming all by itself coming from a cooler emitter. This trips up many when using English and not the basic, simple eqn.s.

    Also have to watch the simplifying assumptions not to get bit by them; the insolation is easier to keep track of if assume doesn’t get absorbed on way to surface as above. This is not strictly true in reality, but the additional terms make it harder to discuss the basics. IOW there is some overlap in SW & LW spectrums but minor, leave that for the more advanced chapters if progress.

    You can see this in the NOAA ESRL charts by clicking on the various fluxes.

    Sure there’s a lag between peak insolation and peak temperature. This is transient thermo not LTE so have heat eqn. not in balance (as it is at LTE where DT/dt = 0):

    Net solar flux-in – (UWIR-DWIR) = m*Cp*DT/dt

    not at LTE here so the mass m of the atm. causes the lag as T increases in AM then decreases in PM, not the atm. emissivity DWIR. Turn off net solar flux-in to 0 and see the transient cooling at night as DT/dt becomes negative; DWIR is still slowing the cooling at night.

    That got long; a proper editor could simplify it majorly I suppose. Spot any typo.s?

  77. Max™‮‮ says:

    I’m not a fan of assuming thermal equilibrium for a system with varying inputs, only the output remains roughly constant.

    You talk about your understanding of physics and thermodynamics a lot.

    Here’s a question for you.

    Assume you have two surfaces with the same emissivity and albedo, both receiving the same insolation.

    One lacks an atmosphere and can only cool by radiating into a vacuum.

    One possesses an atmosphere and can cool by radiation, conduction, and evaporation.

    Will the distribution of energy vary between these two surfaces?

  78. Trick says:

    Konrad 1:06am: “They did not include the vertical circulation of gasses in their calculations, and nor have you.”

    This is where the control volume concept in thermodynamics is so very important. Like the free body diagram in structural mechanics. The internal forces of the truss bars don’t matter, just the external forces on the free body.

    The vertical circulations of gasses in Earth’s atm. do not cross the control volume so do not need accounting. This is why it is correct physics to consider the radiative processes accounting which do cross the control volume of surface and atm.

    Your experiment has flux-in and flux-out across your control volume, right? The cold water and the hot water. Thus you MUST keep track of them in your experiment. They cross the control volume. These fluxes control the results. They are important in YOUR experiment.

    The non-radiative fluxes not crossing the control volume are not important for the heat eqn. LTE of Earth.

    You CAN dig deeper and debate Trenberth internal fluxes like internal stresses in truss bars where you might be concerned about them (the truss bars might break collapsing the free body). And for some reason, people like to discuss Trenberth internals for grins. Unless the internals affect what crosses the control volume, they don’t matter.

  79. Konrad says:

    Trick says:

    December 18, 2012 at 1:56 am
    —————————————————–
    Sorry trick, you know that trick won’t work. Just as the heating and cooling tubes move energy in and out of the boxes, so to does solar radiation bring energy into our atmosphere and IR from radiative gasses allow energy out. You can’t win, the AGW calculations do not include vertical circulation in the atmosphere. For the AGW radiative physics to work the earth would need a static atmosphere and this is not the case on earth. AGW is pysically impossible in a convective atmosphere containing radiative gasses.

  80. Trick says:

    Konrad 2:06 am: “Just as the heating and cooling tubes move energy in and out of the boxes, so to does solar radiation bring energy into our atmosphere and IR from radiative gasses allow energy out.”

    ^Ding^. Konrad finally gets it right. The only fluxes that count for Earth near surface global Tavg. are the radiative ones that cross the control volume around the surface and atm.: net solar SW flux-in and net LW IR out. None of the non-radiative fluxes cross the control volume so do not matter at LTE as Konrad writes.

    The atm. composition matters for the external flux-out so can affect near surface global Tavg.

  81. Trick says:

    Konrad 1:56 am: Here’s what I think you mean: 2 planets, same emissivity, insolation, albedo say Earth like flux-in density = 1370*0.7

    Planet A has no atmosphere.

    Planet B has a normal atmosphere, a radiative heat sink to deep space, a global conductive external heat sink to deep space X flux density cooling the planet, some sort of a global evaporative external heat sink to deep space Y flux density cooling the planet which both must cross the control volume around the surface and atm. for the planet to cool.

    Let the planets achieve LTE.

    Planet A at LTE:

    1370 * 0.7 – 4*sigma*(1-0) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 255K

    Planet B at LTE earth-like atm. global emissivity 0.8:

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

    Planet B Teq.(X,Y)K = ((239.75-X-Y)/0.6*sigma)^0.25

    If I did the arithmetic right; no guarantees. (If X,Y = 0 reduces to 255K at least).

    “Will the distribution of energy vary between these two surfaces?”

    All I can say with the usual simplifications is Planet B near surface Teq. at LTE will differ from 255K as shown, a f(X,Y).

    Now if you meant Planet B can only cool external by radiation, but the surface has Earth normal conduction and evaporation internal fluxes, then for Planet B:

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

    Hey, Planet B is Earth.

    This might help you to see the difference of internal and external fluxes past the control volume around the surface and the atm. It did for me.

  82. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    What I mean is very simple, for a column of compressible gas in a gravity field that is heated from the base, changes in the vertical position of any cooling dramatically effect the average temperature of the column of gas. It’s that simple, a basic physical principal, no maths required.

    Just look at the inapplicable maths you just typed. Where is the vertical circulation of the air? Nowhere, that’s where. If you want to use maths to even come close to solving for vertical movement of heated air you would need to run an iterative calculation. That means running a computer program. Linear SB style equations will not work for an atmosphere separate to the surface, that is many kilometres deep and experiences convective circulation.

    Look again at the two box experiment. The heating and cooling in each box is identical in power. All that differs between each box is the vertical position of the cooling elements. The boxes achieve a dramatic difference in temperature of 25C. Try using your maths to explain that. You can’t. Because you can’t, you should acknowledge that your maths is totally inapplicable to anything resembling a real atmosphere.

    Try explaining the 25C differential between the two boxes with linear equations, it should be entertaining.

  83. Stephen Wilde says:

    “changes in the vertical position of any cooling dramatically effect the average temperature of the column of gas. It’s that simple, a basic physical principal, no maths required.”

    I agree with that but perhaps a slight adjustment.

    Changes in the height of the point of equilibrium dramatically affect the average temperature of the column of gas.

    So, in the diabatic loop the relevant height would be where DWIR equals UWIR which appears to be at the top of the atmosphere where incoming solar equals outgoing longwave and that height is variable.

    In the adiabatic loop it is where KE equals PE which is somewhere within the vertical column and that height is variable though ultimately that height is related to the strength of the gravitational field.

    The important point being that they are both variable and have an opposite sign response to any forcing so their relative movements negate any forcing effect other than one which directly affects both loops equally such as changes in mass, gravity or insolation.

    I think it is beyond dispute that solar input and gravity work in opposite directions because solar input seeks to expand an atmosphere whilst gravity seeks to contract it.

  84. Max™‮‮ says:

    Trick, energy and temperature are not the same, are they?

    What effect does gravity have on the entropy of a collapsing cloud of gas?

  85. wayne says:

    Stephen, I’m a bit lost.
    What meaning are you placing on “where KE equals PE”? I assume that is the point when half the KE has converted to PE but why is that special?

  86. Stephen Wilde says:

    Good question.

    On reflection, maybe the height of that point doesn’t need to change after all because simply changing the height of the atmosphere will change the amounts of PE above and KE below for the required effect.

    What do you think ?

    The detailed implications of all this are new to me too 🙂

  87. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trying to think this through, the whole point is to arrive at a balance that stabilises surface temperature so if something acts on the diabatic loop to cause a higher atmosphere then that creates more PE at the expense of KE for a net cooling effect at the surface.

    Presumably the point at which KE = PE would then be lower ?

    The rise in height in the diabatic loop is a warming effect ( more solar energy retained) but the fall in the height in the adiabatic loop is a cooling effect (reducing the average KE in each molecule because more has been replaced by PE) so net thermal outcome is zero but with an expanded atmosphere and reconfigured circulation.

    Going to an extreme example anything that increased the height of the atmosphere indefinitely (such as the sun going supernova) would reduce the height of KE = PE to the surface at which point no atmosphere left. An excess of PE over KE at the surface enables the molecules to fly off into space.

    Or if the gravitational field were removed completely the height at which KE = PE would rise to the top of the atmosphere at which point no atmosphere left. An excess of KE over PE at top of atmosphere lets the molecules fly off into space.

    So the special characteristic of the point at which KE = PE is that it represents the height at which solar induced atmospheric expansion and gravitationally induced atmospheric compression are in balance.

    And that is the balance one needs to retain an atmosphere and NOT the balance of radiation at top of atmosphere.

    AGW physics incorrectly tries to merge the radiative diabatic and mechanical adiabatic processes into a purely radiative exchange and in doing so commits an accounting error which I explained previously.

  88. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoops.

    The sun going supernova would have the same effect as removal of the gravitational field namely KE exceeding PE at top of atmosphere.

    Need to consider two other scenarios namely the sun switching off altogether and the gravitational pull increasing exponentially.

    In both those cases PE would exceed KE at the surface and the atmosphere would congeal on the ground.

    Apart from that clarification the main point holds as regards the significnce of the height of the PE = KE balance.

    My head now hurts.

  89. Trick says:

    Konrad 4:47 am: “Where is the vertical circulation of the air? Nowhere, that’s where.”

    Stephen correctly points out a rising parcel offsets a descending parcel diabatic process. The vertical circulation of air does not send any energy across the relevant control volume. This circulation is a closed loop, energy up=energy down, no vertical circulation of the air energy crosses the control volume enclosing surface & atmosphere. Only radiation can cross that control volume so that is why only radiation need accounting for in cooling the planet. You help make my case when you point out vertical circulation is nowhere. That is correct physics.

    Check in later, I’m interested enough to connect this to the Trenberth flux stuff.

    Konrad continues: “Look again at the two box experiment. The heating and cooling in each box is identical in power. Try using your maths to explain that. You can’t.”

    Put a control volume around your boxes. Let them achieve LTE. Here are the fluxes that need accounting crossing the control volume:

    Cold water in.
    Cold water out.
    Hot water in.
    Hot water out.
    Radiation flux-out from box surface (it is T>0 so it is radiating IR).
    Radiation flux-in from the IR bath of the room it is in.
    Net conduction flux thru surface of box (insulation not perfect).
    Net convection flux if any air moves in/out thru any small hole or small pores.
    Net conduction flux of metal pipes.
    Electric resistance net flux from the temperature sensors.
    Misc. Net flux I’d need to inspect for that I cannot see from here.

    ******

    Once Konrad properly accounts for all the external fluxes crossing the control volume, proper LTE thermo math will explain the temperatures. The internal fluxes will have no effect on the temperature in the control volume since they will cancel at LTE per Stephen’s rising and descending parcels canceling.

    That should have been entertaining, even more entertaining when Konrad reports hey, the math does work out! Turn up the hot water, T goes up. Turn up the cold water, T goes down.

  90. Stephen Wilde says:

    If GHGs turn up the hot water in the diabatic process by slowing the pass through of energy then the adiabatic process turns up the cold water for a zero net effect.

    If GHGs turn up the cold water by speeding up the pass through of energy then the adiabatic process turns up the warm water.

    Wayne’s example of the diurnal process is helpful in envisaging it.

    During the day, insolation heats the surface and the atmosphere expands above it. The conversion of KE to PE increases as a result of the expansion and the surface heats up less than it would have done in the absence of an atmosphere because of the reduction in KE.

    On the night side, radiation cools the surface and the atmosphere contracts above it. The conversion of PE back to KE increases as a result of the contraction and the surface cools down less than it would have done in the absence of an atmosphere because of the increase in KE.

    Just extend that process to every forcing agent.

    The only forcing agents that could raise equilibrium temperature would be ones that add energy to both the diabatic and adiabatic loops together. That would be mass, gravity and insolation.

    Any forcing agent that only adds energy to one loop will be offset by an equal and opposite response in the other loop. That would be composition changes other than those affecting mass.

  91. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick’s thermo math contains no terms for the variable speed of the non radiative processes.

    That is, the speed of,say, evaporation and condensation through the water cycle or the speed of the windflow through the entire atmospheric circulation.

    The vertical circulation of the air does NOT have a zero net effect if the speed can be varied and it can.

    That is why I specified the need to separate out the adiabatic loop from the diabatic loop. Both can vary the speed of energy transmission within them and they respond with opposite sign to the same forcing agent.

    They respond with opposite sign because the effect of solar energy is to expand the atmosphere and the effect of gravity is to contract the atmosphere.

    The diabatic loop is solar radiative and the adiabatic loop is gravity mechanical.

    AGW theory mixes the two up and leaves out half of the adiabatic loop from the equations.

  92. Max™‮‮ says:

    I once had someone try to ridicule me for saying pressure is part of what determines the temperature at the surface by claiming an absurdity on my part “the atmosphere doesn’t do pushups” they told me…

    Except there is a bulge that rotates a bit behind the planet where the air is heated, rises, then cools and shrinks… so yes, it is literally doing pushups all day every day.

  93. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:22 pm: “If GHGs turn up the hot water in the diabatic process by slowing the pass through of energy then the adiabatic process turns up the cold water for a zero net effect.”

    Stephen – No cold water! Not for relevant Earth control volume, only radiation gets out not any cold water. Earth can’t turn up the cold water flow out when there is no cold water flowing out.

    Konrad’s control volume is different than Earth’s. The cold water flux in Konrad’s experiment represents the evaporation-transpiration and thermals in Earth’s energy budget I think. Verify that Konrad, please – I seem to recall you have it at the surface in your boxes.

    This cold water flux in Konrad’s experiments crosses his control volume in & out and affects T, but in Earth’s control volume the evaporation-transpiration and thermals cannot cross the TOA control volume – only radiation can do so. These are internal fluxes not external fluxes. The internal fluxes cycle, do not affect global Tavg. 288K, only radiation flux-in and radiation flux-out balance can affect 288K. Affect that radiation flux-out and then affect the near surface global Tavg.=288K.

    Stephen is making process thinking this thru. I commend it. I know his head hurts from it!

    wayne’s diurnal process stays in Earth’s control volume as an internal flux. Think that thru likewise, there is no cold water getting out in wayne’s diurnal either. Only net radiation gets out and that is equal to net radiation in at LTE.

    Look at Trenberth’s top line 2009 picture. See net 239 W/m^2 SW in & net 239 LW out? Balanced. No cold water spewing in or out to turn up or down as Konrad can. I will have more on controversial Trenberth stuff later, gotta’ find time.

    A little hint: Spot Konrad’s cold water flux there? 17 + 80? Does it go out as does cold water Konrad’s experiment? No. It stays in & recycles into DWIR (Trenberth unfortunately uses the much dissed “backradiation” term for DWIR. I will show how that works. In heat eqn. I’ve been using. Later.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf

  94. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:46 pm: “The vertical circulation of the air does NOT have a zero net effect if the speed can be varied and it can.”

    Then the system is not at LTE and the atm. mass (a constant!) turns on causing lags until LTE achieved. You have transient thermo going on when the speed varies, and it does, but cycles around a mean of Tavg. = 288K.

    It might be possible on Earth that nowhere it is 288K near the surface at any instant (a problem with averaging process), but the global avg. WILL be near T=288K as the radiative flux in & out system settles to the evidence of 4Bln years of LTE stably cycling around Tavg. on eon time scales. Change the raditive flux-in flux-out balance and get a changed global Tavg. – the speed of the vertical circulation not crossing the relevant control volume can NOT change global Tavg., speed can only change local T around a mean or avg.

  95. Max™‮‮ says:

    Title: The Shape and Location of the Diurnal Bulge in the Upper Atmosphere
    Authors: Jacchia, L. G. & Slowey, J.

    Been trying to find more research on this, you’d think there would be more since that paper was from 1966. It can’t be unimportant for satellite operations.

  96. Stephen Wilde says:

    The system is never at LTE.

    It does always cycle around it.

    There is the equivalent of cold (or warm) water in the form of an equal and opposite adiabatic loop response to any change in the diabatic loop which does not involve changes in mass, gravity or insolation..That phenomenon is internal to the atmosphere and does not affect balance at top of atmosphere, only at the surface below the atmosphere.

    There is no need for a changed Tavg at the surface if one only changes composition as opposed to mass, gravity or insolation for the reasons I stated.

    There is no DWIR. Simply KE being returned to the surface on the descending adiabatic loop.

    That supply of returning KE can be slowed down or speeded up as necessary to maintain a stable surface Tavg despite forcing elements seeking to change that surface Tavg.

    Composition changes themselves can only change local T around a mean or avg and the speed of the vertical circulation changes to counter it.

    Water vapour changing the tropospheric lapse rate is an effect local to the troposphere.

    Ozone changing the stratopheric lapse rate is an effect local to the stratosphere.

    Everything within the atmosphere involves a local T around a mean or avg.

    Only the top of atmosphere energy exchange with the sun is a global constant but even that changes around a mean or avg due to internal system variability.

    Trick continues to try to merge the two loops, leaves out half the adiabatic loop and has to invent DWIR to fill the gap.

  97. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    Your tricks won’t work. I will not become frustrated or distracted. My experiment shows a clear temperature differential between the test chambers of 25C. Your maths can’t explain this, and indeed you have not tried. I have proved that AGW is impossible on this planet.

    I look forward to your next evasion and distraction effort. Will it be back to airless planets? Or will it be another iteration of a pointless SB equation? Whatever the next tactic is matters little if you can’t explain the temperature differential between the boxes.

    I have used a $150 empirical experiment to disprove all the AGW BS that $100 billion could buy. What have you got?

    25C Trick. Where’s your maths to explain that? Nowhere, that’s where 😉

  98. Trick says:

    Konrad 7:49 pm: “..and indeed you have not tried. 25C Trick. Where’s your maths to explain that? Nowhere, that’s where”.

    I have tried! See 2:24pm.

    Konrad is right to continue to support the case that internal flows should not be counted in the external flows. As he writes, internal flows are nowhere to be found when counting the external flows, by definition they are internal. Add them up in my 2:24 pm post for Konrad’s experiment since only Konrad knows the water flow rates, the water temp. in, the water temp. out, the radiative flux of the boxes (measured with radiometer). Then find why the 25C exists.

    Konrad has made no effort to measure and add up the external fluxes I noted so his experiment delta T is a mystery to him.

    Konrad raises and lowers one of the radiators in his experiment IIRC. That means part of the tubing is inside one of his boxes and that part is outside on the other box. The tubing radiates & conducts inside so a box is 25C different when it radiates and conducts outside. Just carefully add up the net fluxes Konrad, the experiment will not be a mystery, just as Earth’s global budget Tavg. is not a mystery when the radiation flux-in and flux-out are added up.

    No cold water flows in or escapes Earth control volume around atm. & surface, just radiation.

  99. Stephen Wilde says:

    Let Trick try this:

    i) Retain present set of radiative diabatic calculations with the single ‘control volume’ as he puts it.

    ii) Add a second control volume oppositely signed and representing the mechanical adiabatic scenario.

    iii) Get rid of DWIR from the diabatic calculations and replace with returning KE from the downcycle of the adiabatic loop.

    That should produce a set of equations that does not require a change in surface temperature because the thermal effects of the two loops should cancel out.

  100. Konrad says:

    Here is an image of the two boxes again just for “clarification” 😉

    Internal volume of each box = 500 x 500 x 100mm
    Flow rate through all tubing = 1 litre a minute
    Cooling water temp = 1C
    Heating water temp = 60C
    Internal starting temp for each box = 20C
    Temperature differential between boxes after 30 minute run = 25C

    And the only difference between the boxes? The height of the the cooling elements.
    What causes energy loss at altitude on this planet? IR radiation to space.
    What happens if we remove radiative gasses from our atmosphere? Box 2
    What happens if we add radiative gasses to our atmosphere? Box 1.

    No global warming for you trick 😉

  101. wayne says:

    Trick –

    “The vertical circulations of gasses in Earth’s atm. do not cross the control volume so do not need accounting.”

    Are you saying they are within the “control volume”?

    “This is why it is correct physics to consider the radiative processes accounting which do cross the control volume of surface and atm”

    “control volume of surface and atm”? What is that Trick? You never define it clearly. I’m guessing you have wrapped a one square meter of the entire atmosphere, but not the surface, and are calling the atmosphere now the control atmosphere. You ignore that solar energy absorbed by the control volume but now deal strictly with the ~161 J/s absorbed by the surface by radiation. You seem to say that 161 J/s appear at the top across the control volume and exits to space, the energy in the control volume is irrelevant. That ~78 J/s absorbed by the atmosphere also appears at the top of the control volume and is ejected now totaling ~238 J/s, end of story. It is all radiation.

    Well, pooh, everyone here already knows that all incoming energy is from radiation and all energy leaving the system is radiation and you seem to be saying let’s forget everything else, it doesn’t matter, let’s speak of something else. Others are more curious as to “how” that 161 minus 63 gets to the top to radiate. Others want to know “how” that 78 gets to the top to radiate.

    “Stephen correctly points out a rising parcel offsets a descending parcel diabatic process. The vertical circulation of air does not send any energy across the relevant control volume. This circulation is a closed loop, energy up=energy down, no vertical circulation of the air energy crosses the control volume enclosing surface & atmosphere. Only radiation can cross that control volume so that is why only radiation need accounting for in cooling the planet. You help make my case when you point out vertical circulation is nowhere. That is correct physics.”

    Now you are making no physical sense and this only could occur in a simplified unrealistic theoretical thought experiments. Is it that Stephen uses the term “adiabatic”? I agree, that is the wrong term, there IS energy leaking from all dry thermals or wet thermals also carrying latent heat to higher levels.

    I do see if we are going to pick on the terms used, adiabatic, diabatic, or isentropic us not the correct terms to describe the energy flows upward. Those are “pure” and zero energy transfers in this ideal but unrealistic case.

    I guess I’m just asking Trick, you know enough to help here, why are you doing this drumming down of the reality? Maybe you can give Stephen better terms and words to use. It is the energy transfers within your control volume that this post is addressing.

  102. wayne says:

    Stephen, you need to step out of the theoretical world taught in td and physics books into the real world or you are going to have problems explaining this “loop” process. I think that is what Trick is saying without ever saying it. Stop using “adiabatic”, that is an idealized tool to teach first learners, it never really occurs in that manner in the real atmosphere, it’s too big, the time spans are way too long, energy does leak out and in a big-time way. It is the long distances and long times that facilitates this transfer of energy upward. But, what you are saying and the idealized adiabatic process are related. It’s the energy lost that makes them different. maybe pick a new term so we won’t trip over idealized/realistic difference.

    When solar radiation hits the surface after sunrise two main things happen. One, the temperature begins to rise and that immediately causes a drop in density. P/Rρ IS temperature. The R never locally changes and neither the pressure. It is the density and that decrease in density lifts the column and also causes the low package to rise.

    Take P/ρ=RT using R=Rair, not R=Rbar, for the specific air gas constant.

    Cp = Rλ/(λ-1) and Cv = R/(λ-1). These are not “idealized” but measured now. What does this say? Since the atmosphere in all respects is a cylinder full of gases with it’s own near frictionless “piston” (that is, all air above each level) when you heat the air at the surface and it warms it also does work on the column (“piston” above) lifting it by the density decrease. Cp has the λ in the numerator and Cv does not which IS that storage in PE of that portion of energy. Can you follow that? I think that is correct.

    The way I see it, this energy stored in that additional PE by it being “puffed up” is not reconverted to T until after the sun sets. Also, the air is now warmer, both are two sides of the same coin, T and PE rise in tandem due to that pesky “λ” in the Cp equation. Increase temperature, it will also lift. Decrease the temperature and the PE will be converted to a small portion of T (KE), slowing the cooling at night.

    Just remember, P/ρ IS energy and has energy units. P/Rρ IS temperature and of course is in Kelvin. What’s the difference, the R. Go figure. That moves all energy absorbed in the atmosphere to a point where the attenuation length or absorption length (see wiki) is now larger than the distance to where molecules “see” space and can start to eject this energy out.

    Hope that clarifies some and doesn’t instead confuse.

  103. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoah wayne.

    It’s not that I need to explain the concept to scientists but that any scientists that get it right are then going to have to explain it to the public and politicians.

    I don’t think the public and politicians are going to follow your comments unless I can work out what you mean and do some translating.

    I’m with you up to a point. Namely that the term ‘adiabatic loop’ appears to you to imply that I am including in that loop energy that leaves via latent heat transfer and direct radiation out from atmosphere to space.

    I thought I clarified that previously by saying that the adiabatic loop only needs to include the KE that IS returned to the surface by descending air.

    As regards that portion I think the term ‘adiabatic’ is fine because most people are either aware of adiabatic heating and cooling or could easily become aware of it. There are lots of references to it in the literature so it is a well established concept.

    What seems not to be familiar is my current application of the concept to the entire atmosphere which you seem to intuitively understand even if you aren’t happy with my terms of expression.

    Then you say this:

    “The way I see it, this energy stored in that additional PE by it being “puffed up” is not reconverted to T until after the sun sets”

    I cannot go with that because descending air warms wherever and whenever it descends and the process of puffing up and deflating is highly variable in time and place because the motion of the atmosphere around a rotating sphere causes variations in the low and high pressure cells all over the place, day and night, season to season and even on multidecadal timescales.

    Thus we have to consider the overall picture on long timescales to understand climate change. The diurnal timescale provides a neat illustration of the basic principle but in reality the process I am trying to describe is going on in the background all the time on multiple timescales and from multiple interacting causes.

    The rest of your post I think I follow and I think it is just a slightly more technical description of what I said but I may have missed something.

    Have I ?

  104. Trick says:

    wayne 9:40 pm: “control volume of surface and atm”? What is that Trick? You never define it clearly.”

    Around TOA and earth surface (not interior magma). The Trenberth cartoon outline, I’ll post that picture up next and define it better pictorially. TOA not well defined, call it the satellite orbits measuring the radiation flux I guess.

    wayne continues: “a rising parcel offsets a descending parcel diabatic process…Now you are making no physical sense and this only could occur in a simplified unrealistic theoretical thought experiments. Is it that Stephen uses the term “adiabatic”?”

    These are the “thermals” in the Trenberth cartoon, flux density up as 17 W/m^2 , down as 17 W/m^2 so sort of can think of as an end result “adiabatic” process totaled in the Trenberth 333. This is really diabatic, two way, not adiabatic in nature but Stephen is ok to think of it as adiabatic since same flux density goes up as comes down due to atm. being optically thick.

    Meaning Stephen’s top post title is ok, it is a big mistake to ignore these “adiabatic” thermals processes but I’m not sure Stephen gets how it really happens (the optically thick part). I’ll keep track of the 17 in the next post as Stephen says it is important to do that, I agree. The big thing to note is the 17 does NOT cross the control volume, no thermals go to space.

    wayne then writes: “..why are you doing this drumming down of the reality? Maybe you can give Stephen better terms and words to use. It is the energy transfers within your control volume that this post is addressing.”

    Yes, well I guess b/c posters are interested in different parts, and it takes me time to learn what they miss or really need or want to get at the science. Ok, do my best all-in try in next post. No drumming down, spinach time. Have to use math science eqn.s, queen’s English is too vague, prepare for that. I’ve used them all before though.

  105. Trick says:

    Ok, as predicted, I will do for planet Earth what Konrad won’t do for his $150 experiment in order to de-mystify the equilibrium temperature and correctly learn about global heat balance. This will take some work and concentration and tracing with me, making Stephen’s head hurt again. It is well worth the effort in future blogging, you have to eat your spinach to be big and strong.

    Given Trenberth et. al. flow diagram since at least this one is traceable to originator & published. And he had the guts to hang it out there. What Konrad needs to do is add up the external fluxes after waiting for equilibrium using the heat equation (google it) on all the fluxes I wrote up 2:24pm around his box control volume. Here it is below for the Earth control volume around the atm. and surface as in the outline around the world in Fig 1 p. 314.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf

    See the outline – square on 3 sides curvy underneath? That’s the control volume of relevance and only radiation can cross it to deep space since deep space doesn’t conduct or have thermals or evaporation. I’ve been using the correct planet level basic heat eqn. started by Joe Postma in the top post of that other 700+ post thread.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality/

    Basic heat equation from 1st principles traceable:

    Net Flux-in density – Net Flux-out density = m*Cp*DT/dt (W/m^2) which for Earth becomes:

    Net solar flux-in density – (UWIR-DWIR) = m*Cp*DT/dt W/m^2

    where at LTE DT/dt = 0 and using Joe’s Earth numbers becomes with all observed measured data:

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

    Trenberth uses Mar. 2000 to May 2004 period input data, so adjust to that atm. emissivity = .739, surface (L&O) emissivity = 1.0 (rounded), gross insolation 1365.7 W/m^2:

    (1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.793/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289.1K

    In flux density terms rewrite this same exact eqn. as in doing the arithmetic:

    239 – (396 – 157) = 0 or 239 – 239 = 0, flux-in & flux-out is balanced across control volume at LTE since DT/dt =0.

    Can we find these fluxes in the cartoon? Yes, cartoon shows ’em.

    Net solar SW = 341 – 102 = 239 W/m^2 coming in; we are safe since satellites measure this very amount.

    What about the outgoing LW? Yes, cartoon has 239 W/m^2 outgoing LW balanced across control volume with 239 net incoming, so DT/dt = 0. NOTHING else crosses the control volume, especially no cold water. We are also safe here, satellites measure the exact same 239 outgoing averaged over the spectrum give or take.

    Can we find the UWIR 396 W/m^2? Yes. By inspection, it is labeled surface radiation.

    Can we find the atm. DWIR? Noooo……sadly. This causes all kinds of concern and sets Stephen and Konrad et. al. off on ill-fated missions.

    To bring them down to Earth, follow the spinach; it is worth it.

    What we CAN find in the cartoon is 333 W/m^2 “backradiation.” About a million blog posts later, we discover this term is especially derided as unscientific. I agree. Let’s call it NOAA ESRL term gross DWIR 333. We need to get to net atm. all by itself DWIR though. How?

    Observe Trenberth correctly shows 78 W/m^2 incoming SW solar being absorbed by atm. The text book simple heat eqn. pretends SW passes thru the atm. but since the spectrums overlap a bit, this is by how much exactly. It really doesn’t matter how the accounting is done just that it is honest CPA stuff. If 78 absorbed then 78 emitted as part of gross DWIR in LTE. For my heat eqn., since not absorbed it cannot be emitted in LTE and this reduces gross DWIR 333-78 = 255 on the way to net atm. DWIR – not there yet.

    Note the thermals of 17 and the evapo-transpiration of 80 go up & down in the 333 (Trenberth knows Stephen is breathing). This does not get to space as shown and the only thing between surface & space stopping it is the optical thickness of the atm. which Trenberth correctly shows as absorption by atm.

    If absorbed it is emitted, what goes up as thermals 17 comes down as thermals 17 as Stephen says so often so gross DWIR 333-78-17-80 = net DWIR left over from atm. emissivity all by itself = 158 W/m^2.

    And THAT 158 is the 157 from the atm. all by itself in the heat eqn. from above, unfortunately rounding interfered a bit turning 158 into 157 but what the hell NOAA can only measure DWIR to +/-2 W/m^2 anyways and Trenberth shows 0.9 net absorbed whatever (oceans?):

    239 – (396 – 157) = 0 or 239 – 239 = 0, flux-in & flux-out is balanced across control volume at LTE DT/dt =0.

    Dr. Boltzmann’s work turns this into a near surface global Tavg. or really Teq. for us of 289.1K returning to heat eqn. same as right above:

    (1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.793/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289.1K

    Y’all’s turn….Where have I missed the cold water flow out thru the control volume surrounding the cartoon Konrad and Stephen? Surely textbook theory must leave something unanswered. I will refer you back to this maybe, barring typo.s that probably exist and all give or take a bit.

    No energy’s or entropy’s were harmed in this too long a post. Editor needed, please apply.

  106. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The big thing to note is the 17 does NOT cross the control volume, no thermals go to space.”

    They don’t need to.

    A rising thermal – deduct energy from surface temp but can’t add it to TOA because it never gets there being converted to PE.

    A falling thermal – Never got added to TOA but needs to be added back to surface when it returns then added back to TOA when surface radiates it up again.

    So there you have three terms which leaves the surface apparently too hot so AGW introduces concept of DWIR to cover the discrepancy and balance the books.

    Correct accounting would be:

    rising thermal removes energy from surface and cools TOA since it never arrives there.

    falling thermal adds energy back to surface which immediately radiates it out so add it back at TOA.

    There you have four terms that balance. No need for DWIR.

    Then the next inadequacy of AGW theory is that the average speed of thermals rising and falling can change in a negative fashion in response to any radiative forcing that might develop in the atmosphere whether it be from more GHGs or less GHGs.

    Note that here I am only considering energy locked into the adiabatic process and NOT energy that reaches the TOA by other means. That deals with wayne’s point I think.

    The adiabatic loop will only ever run at a speed that balances any difference between solar incoming and the outgoing energy from other processes.

  107. Stephen Wilde says:

    Looks like Trick’s long post crossed with mine so I’ll make the two main points here:

    i) The energy from the thermals (my adiabatic loop) of 17 or whatever does not come down as emitted DWIR. It comes down at the surface as PE converted to KE by compression.

    ii) The thermals can be more or less than 17 depending on the effectiveness or otherwise of other methods of energy transfer in getting to TOA fast enough to match solar incoming. The larger the shortfall and the thermals run faster. The smaller the shortfall the thermals run slower.

    There is no provision for that variability in Trick’s post or in AGW theory.

    That variability provides a ‘warm water’ flow or a ‘cold water’ flow as necessary to maintain stability.

    It is the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere that drives the speed of the thermals. Expanding atmosphere slows them down for a cooling effect at the surface. Contracting speeds them up for a warming effect at the surface. In each case offsetting an increase or decrease in GHGs or any other compositional change not involving mass.

    Wayne has shown us figures that suggest the amounts of energy involved when KE is converted to PE or back again when the atmosphere expands or contracts are sufficient for the purpose.

    Trick should run his figures again in the way suggested previously.

  108. wayne says:

    “The big thing to note is the 17 does NOT cross the control volume, no thermals go to space.”

    Well, that means the 80 doesn’t either, they are one and the same thing, one wet and also carrying latent heat upward and the other without, it’s dry. I’m really no longer following the flow of this entire thread. I thought I was for a while but it’s gone. Stephen, can you summerize where we are?

    Also, this keeps jumping and dancing from individual thermals to a global day-night averaged viewpoint. Thermals ALWAYS have an opposite mass balance in action at the same time, so looking at only one side of the coin and making assumptions of the coin seems to scramble it. That isn’t helping either. Which one is the basis here?

    The downward portion of one single thermal has magnitudes more area involved than the hot core portion. That hot core does get to TOA with it’s higher temperature. Do you not agree? Isn’t that what is now being called the “crossing the control volume”? Yes, it’s final leap is by radiation but I thought we were speaking of energy, all types.

  109. Trick says:

    Stephen 11:28pm: “A rising thermal – deduct energy from surface temp but can’t add it to TOA because it never gets there being converted to PE.”

    No do not deduct from surface T unless you simply destroyed the thermals energy of 17 before returning 17 to surface (1st law no-no). Whether it is PE or KE, it hangs around, constant. No thermals can go to space so their energy must still be here, once 17 absorbed in atm. (diabatic remember) 17 returns to surface via emissivity in the gross DWIR 333 W/m^2 obeying the 1st law.

    Roughly the instant thermals leave the surface, equal thermals return to surface as Stephen always, ALWAYS writes. Correctly by the way and again right here: “rising thermal removes energy from surface and cools TOA since it never arrives there…falling thermal adds energy back to surface which immediately radiates it out so add it back at TOA.” and so on and on…surface sends thermals up, atm. sends equal thermals down to surface. 17 up, 17 down, over & over. This is what balance means.

    Stephen continues: “There you have four terms that balance. No need for DWIR.”

    Need the net 157 DWIR of the 333 gross DWIR to get in balance externally for 239-239=0, as the 17 & 80 recycle internally. All the time recycling, in balance. Up 17, down 17, up 80, down 80. Rinse repeat.

    Stephen continues: “average speed of thermals rising and falling can change in a negative fashion in response to any radiative forcing”

    Yes, actually. If the speed of a storm Sandy sends things transiently out of balance, DT/dt is no longer 0 and the mass of the atm. comes in to play to put a damper on how fast and how far T can swing. Say Sandy makes UWIR more than 396 and net DWIR down from 157 say. then have some places too hot some too cold for equilibrium:

    Net solar flux-in density – (UWIR up from 396 – DWIR down from 157) = m*Cp*DT/dt W/m^2

    Until LTE settles in again as too hot regions warm too cold regions, eventually storm passes and becomes once again:

    Net solar flux-in density – (UWIR-DWIR) = 0

    And remember you volunteered this is correct for clarity on the other thread.

    Stephen: “The adiabatic loop will only ever run at a speed that balances any difference between solar incoming and the outgoing energy from other processes.”

    The “adiabatic” loop is actually diabatic in nature (optical thickness is a future study for you) but net-net only cycles 17 and 80 up and down behaving as if it were adiabatic. NEED the atm. all by itself delivering the net 157 DWIR absolutely needed to surface to get in balance for eons.

    Now we have some numbers to discuss. More light on the subject wouldncha’ say?

  110. Trick says:

    wayne 12:07 am: “Well, that means the 80 doesn’t either, they are one and the same thing, one wet and also carrying latent heat upward and the other without, it’s dry.”

    True, the 80 evapo-transpiration can’t get to space either; it doesn’t rain in space. The 80 is different than 17 thermals though, the 80 represents evaporative cooling leaving surface and the latent heat released going back to surface as rain, snow, sleet. Trenberth shows all lumped together in 333, that’s why I had to unlump. The 80 is an internal flux, recycling in balance.

    Remember these are global averages & suffer from the deficiency in the average process, there may be no place on Earth at 17 or 80, yet the global average will be roughly those numbers in balance at LTE for discussion/learning purposes.

    Yes, talking about energy of all types, some are internal fluxes, some are external fluxes but balanced in LTE.

  111. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    No, that maths is still not going to work. Linear SB equations cannot solve for moving gasses. If you wish to use maths you are going to have to use iterative calculations such as used in GCMs. There is no modification you can make to SB style equations that will correctly calculate the temperature differential between the boxes.

    You can explain the temperature differential between the boxes by simply dividing the air in the boxes into two columns of three levels. Basically 6 air masses. Then run iterative conduction and movement calculations. Each iteration calculate the conductive transfer between each of the six air masses and its neighbours and any of the heating and cooling tube it may be in contact with. Then calculate the vertical movement of each of the masses based on relative temperature and buoyancy. Calculate and print the average temperature of each of the masses. Repeat the program loop. Four or more iterations will do it. It’s that simple.

    As to hand waving about fluxes in and out of the boxes, well that trick will not work either. I have run the experiment with hot and cold gel packs. The results are the same.

    The temperature differential between the boxes proves AGW is physically impossible. Its clear that your maths can’t explain the differential. It should therefore be clear that the same maths can’t be used to explain the role of radiative gasses in our moving atmosphere. It should also be very clear that your maths can not be used for obfuscation as just a quick glance indicates it does not involve iterative calculations.

    I have done the empirical experiment. I can not be snowed.

  112. Trick says:

    Stephen 11:48 pm: “ i) The energy from the thermals (my adiabatic loop) of 17 or whatever does not come down as emitted DWIR. It comes down at the surface as PE converted to KE by compression.”

    If you want to think of it that way, ok. 17 thermals up, 17 down global avg. None to space.
    The science really is the temperature of the medium is sufficient to accurately enough predict the distribution of the total energy among all possible KE modes. This also ensures that any radiative energy absorbed or emitted by a medium will quickly give rise to a commensurate change in the physical temperature of that medium.

    ii) “The thermals can be more or less than 17”

    Yes of course, weather is chaotic. Something else will be less or more to stay in balance for eons. 80 less or more for instance, droughts/floods.

    Stephen continues: “…the atmosphere expands or contracts…Trick should run his figures again in the way suggested previously.”

    Need more to figure out what you mean. wayne’s atm. diurnal expansion does happen. As the atm. is heated in the morning, its enthalpy increases for 2 reasons: its internal energy increases and its potential energy increases b/c the center of gravity of the atm. rises by a z c.g. amount PE/m*g. As it cools, the opposite happens. The figures shown are avg. for globe so don’t pick up diurnal stuff.

    I’ve read in threads where Trenberth should show his cartoon at night for diurnal too. That would have a big unbalance at control volume since nothing comes in but still goes out as the surface cools. It would be fun to see how the other numbers change. Beyond me, leave it to him.

  113. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:37am: “No, that maths is still not going to work.”

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

    Works! Earth Tavg. GHCN thermometer measured ~288K. Measured input data, not made up (well, some is rounded a bit).

    Now I will reveal a little secret of mine, that I thought somebody would eventually get me on, I am tired of waiting. Konrad is correct to consider layers. It happens that Earth’ atm. optical thickness is such that the above equation works so very well in 1 layer.

    Turns out, to get this eqn. to work on Venus need atm. emissivity set = 1.9799. Anyone see an issue that is a real problem here?

    Only in very small quantum stuff can emissivity be more than 1.0, macro stuff to which Maxwell & Gibbs were explicit to limit thermo, e more than 1.0 is a no-no.

    So on Venus the atm. optical thickness is such that you have to consider multiple layers, optimized as to number as Konrad writes. That does not mean Konrad’s experiment in any way disproves a century of radiative theory, observation and experiment. Konrad has yet to ‘splain that one, snowed or not.

  114. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    Nice strawman, well stabbed! I certainly never claimed my experiment was intended to disprove a “century of radiative physics”. The experiment does however prove beyond doubt that radiative physics alone can not give the correct answer for the role of radiative gasses in our atmosphere.

  115. wayne says:

    Stephen, you do realize that Trenberth’s 17 is NET! That’s right NET, the sum total thermal energy transferred up and out to space by GHG excited by collisions near the tropopause.

    It not 17 up 17 down. It is more like 32 up and 17 back, or 52 up and 35 back (17 diff once again) in your “adiabatic” loop. Same for the 80, that is a measured 80 wm-2 up to space. The way you are speaking you might not have realized that. Read Trenberth’s papers. Read Miskolczi’s papers.

    So Trick seems wrong here too. He speaks as though the precipitation from the latent heat that falls back somehow cancels the 80… NO! The 80 is NET up to space (finally by radiation). That could be 120 up and 40 back or 90 up and 10 back, all give a net up of 80 wm-2.

    Those number above are just random wild guesses, I’ve never seen the ‘up’ figure and the ‘down’ figure that give the 17 and 80 net up figures but maybe you two can search those out if they have ever been published in that form.

  116. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:37am: “The temperature differential between the boxes proves AGW is physically impossible.”

    Konrad 1:36am: “I certainly never claimed my experiment was intended to disprove a “century of radiative physics”

    I like that expression Konrad, a straw man well stabbed.

    ******

    wayne 1:51 am: Did you mean this for me? Look at the cartoon closely. The 17 arrow for thermals ends at “absorbed by the atmosphere” as does the 80. Does not intend them go to space in this model, the number is only important b/c Trenberth doesn’t break down the 333 in the cartoon or the paper unfortunately. Geez, this thread is going to go OT dissing the paper, try to just accept it. But I can’t resist a bit of discussion.

    The 17 is net of what exactly? Since the arrows stop in the atm. seems Stephen is correct, the thermals cycle energy up & down in the atm. as parcels rise & fall not out to space adding to the 239 LW out. Evapo-transpiration also cycles sensible heat up into atm. (you sense your wet hand cooling), latent heat cycles that down as rain. Now these are global, the rain is estimated based on runoff and recorded rain fall levels for instance.

    The important point is these 17&80 flux densities do not go out to space so do not cross control volume, they cannot then influence LTE global Tavg. only local T (your hand).

  117. Konrad says:

    Trick says:

    December 19, 2012 at 3:08 am
    ———————————————————————-
    No matter what you try, radiative physics alone can not define the role of radiative gasses in the atmosphere. These gasses absorb energy not just by intercepting LWIR but also by conduction. These gasses also move vertically. A century of radiative physics will not explain the role of radiative gasses in our atmosphere if you do not include the most basic physics of conduction and convection. The only way to properly compute the effect of vertical convection is through iterative calculations.

    Funny, some time back when I conducted the experiment that proved DWIR could not slow the cooling rate of liquid water a certain Joel Shore was harping on about “a century of radiative physics”. I note that not many AGW disciples try the “DWIR from CO2 slows the cooling of the earth” line these days.

    The physics of conduction, convection and radiation are all required to understand the role of CO2 in our atmosphere. I am not dismissing radiative physics, however you a desperate to avoid the real issues of conduction and convection. I used only conduction and convection in the two box experiment. You still show no understanding of how the experiment works or why the temperatures diverge. I suspect you do know that your AGW hoax is dead 😉

  118. Robert Monical says:

    Stephen, I am not sure where this thread is in terms of you current working hypothesis. I hope you have discarded your original hypothesis. Trick still seems to be right on. Some things I did not see mentioned above:
    – Molecules are not billiard balls. They hold energy in a variety of ways. I just cannot conceive of KE + PE is a constant. I see that no references have been added since I last questioned it.
    – Figure 1 in the Trenberth article shows roughly 341 W/M2 in and out (outbound is 102 reflected and 239 emitted IR) with a tiny imbalance in the inbound direction so he thinks we are not quite in equilibrium though he is still looking for his missing heat.
    – It just stands to reason to me that if the atmosphere becomes optically thicker, then it takes a higher temperature to drive the outgoing radiation (another thought experiment).
    – As indicated above, convection is very important to the energy budget. The higher a molecule is in the atmosphere, the less optically thick the atmosphere is above that molecule and the higher likelihood that an emitted photon will escape directly to space. I suspect the convection component of the energy budget is not well modeled.
    – The reason the greenhouse effects warms the planet is the atmosphere is optically thicker to the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and atmosphere than it is to the incoming solar radiation. If solar radiation had the same spectrum as the planetary IR radiation, then it would be a wash (I think).

  119. wayne says:

    Stephen- Trick- Tallbloke- All-

    Here is a very rough spread showing how I visualize the atmosphere if all of data for each parameter and at each pressure level could ever be measured and replace my simple guesses. The guesses show the monotonic spread of energy caused by each layer being denser, warmer, cooler, or in the case of that solar absorbed by the atmosphere the closest to the source incoming (like optical thickness’s logarithmic effect).

    Hope you get the drift. Let me know if and how your view might drastically differ.

  120. Stephen Wilde says:

    There is too much misinterpretation, unnecessary complexity and failure to keep to the specific issues developing here.

    Much like every other thread everywhere so no surprise.

    I’ve said what I wanted to say. Some have made points which indicate a need for some refinement or clearer terms of expression. Others are simply in denial that the radiative only scenario is not fit for purpose due to the variability of separate non radiative processes in atmospheres.

    Carry on betwen yourslves and I’ll just watch and think for a while.

  121. Max™‮‮ says:

    I saw someone mention that “at least Trenberth hung a diagram out there to be picked at”… well I’ll throw my hat into that ring I guess.

    I may have done a silly thing though, I kinda forgot to include all the upward IR and downward IR stuff, but it’s ok because apparently the only important radiative transfer involving the atmosphere is that from the top going out to space.

    Now, I don’t see a reason why the upward radiation from a surface which is not in a vacuum would equal the theoretical SB maximum.

    If you warm a surface to 293 K and it has emissivity of .95, does that mean it has to emit 391 W/m^2… or does it mean it can emit up to 391 W/m^2 but no more?

    I ask because it might be a dumb question on my part… but if this 293 K/.95 emissivity surface transfers energy to an atmosphere through conduction and evapotranspiration… doesn’t that count as part of the 391 W/m^2 too?

    So if a square meter of this surface is emitting 66 Joules through to space every second, and say 35 Joules are carried away by conduction/convection, let’s say it sends another 108 Joules upwards through evaporation, what does that leave? Let’s say it sends 182 Joules zinging off into various gregariously radiative gases.

    I’m going to admit I just fudged the numbers here a little and assumed the gases weren’t perfect emitters, and wound up losing a couple Joules to conduction or whatnot, it doesn’t seem implausible or anything, and the numbers work out… so I did it.

    After all the hustle and bustle and partying going on down near the surface, 179 Joules hook up with the speedy 66 Joules that headed straight for the door, and you get 245 Joules per second per meter to space.

    Do a similar bit of finagling values for the cooler night side, start with a bit less, wind up with only 235 Joules making it out to space, the numbers all seem to work.

    Do a sanity check to make sure, 1.22×10^17 Joules per second from the sun across the 2.55×10^4 square meters of the day side, 6.23×10^16 Joules leaving the day side, 5.99×10^16 Joules leaving the night side, the rest of the energy runs around doing pushups or whatnot since it can’t cross the control volume…

    I don’t see why I need the 333 Joules per second downward portion at all for a sensible enough layout.

    No doubt there are probably some glaring holes that I haven’t missed, but hey, it was fun having a reason to play with libredraw, courses always want libreimpress or librewriter or librecalc, poor libredraw is always left sitting there wishing GIMP would let it have some fun for a change. T.T

  122. Trick says:

    wayne 7:13am – Nice work. I note [K] max. around 9062m altitude – any comments how this relates to the 255K measured by satellites from around 5200m. [J] does show a max. near 252.55K, is that it?

    ******

    Max syas 12:57pm: Great picture adding the night side, yeah something like that.

    As far as S-B and vacuum, all this stuff is rounded & approximated & averaged – some high, some low, (maybe some with a thumb on the scale) with assumptions that properly need be remembered, when nature figures it out instantly and to a million decimals obeying all the laws.

    Pretty amazing.

    I like this view also: “..the rest of the energy runs around doing pushups or whatnot since it can’t cross the control volume… “. Nice.

  123. Max™‮‮ says:

    Ty ty, it ties in well with my class work, interesting twist being able to ramble online and not be slacking off!

    Just did an interesting experiment regarding the constant/half power illumination vs full power/half time illumination that I’m finishing the polish on the paper to make sure the grader approves, I’ll share my results later when I get it saved and ready to send in.

  124. wayne says:

    Trick: “Nice work. I note [K] max. around 9062m altitude – any comments how this relates to the 255K measured by satellites from around 5200m. [J] does show a max. near 252.55K, is that it?”

    Thanks Trick. When you say ‘255K measured by satellites from around 5200m’, I have to ask what ‘measurement’? I do know, like the AMSU, there are ‘algorithms’ that take two actual measurements and along with a series of assumptions and theory get various levels ‘readings’. Could you clarify there?

    That max about the 9000m is bound to be off. How much? I wish we could get enough data or integrations to narrow that down. With some more work and Beers-Lambert a few of those columns could be estimated much closer. Stephen has inlays to meteorology; maybe he could get a better “smear” of the sensible and latent columns across those fractions of mass.

    Trick, sometimes I put my “least action” hat on and you just know the atmosphere is not how many claim. I just read a comment at wuwt that really impressed me for here was someone else that seems to have the same view as myself right now: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-ar5-figure-1-4/#comment-1177239

    I agree with him, the two-stream viewpoint gives everyone a terribly warped view of reality. Power of the maximum ability TO possibly transfer energy is completely different than what a proper one-stream with correct emissivities and two temperatures show what is occuring.

    Maybe with a little help and digging that view can be expanded a bit closer to reality. The incoming near IR absorbed (the 78) is one place I have seen some figures on the ozone absorption then use optical thickness to spread the rest down to the surface where that portion has to be zero.

    You have any ideas how to approach this type of verical energy balance?

  125. wayne says:

    Oh, BTW, that spread http://i49.tinypic.com/n1qao6.png was completely assembled not using the code that creates the 1976 US standard atmosphere, no, but from my nifty new 2/3 modified Poisson equation from https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/wayne-jackson-new-identity-linking-meteorological-phenomena/ and it was HUGELY easier this time. Here’s one line’s equations used:

    [A] =O10 * (R.earth/(R.earth+O8))
    [B], [F]to[I], [K] are values set by hand
    [C] =N10 / (D10*287.05)
    [D] =D11 * (N10/N11)^PoissonExponent
    [E]&[M] N/A
    [J] = J11 + I10 + K11
    [L] =K10/J10
    [N] =O11+(D11-D10)/0.0065

    Super simple. 😉

  126. Trick says:

    wayne 9:23 pm: “..what ‘measurement’?”

    Earth’s outgoing spectrum from satellite measurements.

    “You have any ideas how to approach this type of vertical energy balance?”

    I would figure some expert has already done the work and seek to learn about it. If the expert seems to be a space alien, we may not be able to communicate effectively. Happens.

    To find the expert, I would need what you mean by “this type” exactly. What is the physically wrong “two stream approximation” the poster writes about exactly?

  127. Max™‮‮ says:

    I am gonna keep picturing the atmosphere as big cartoon genies doing pushups myself.

  128. Konrad says:

    Max,
    You seem to be one of the few commenters who seem at all interested in empirical experiment. Prior to this experiment http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg which just runs on conduction and convection I had built a two box experiment that just ran on conduction and radiation that you may be interested in replicating. The equipment used can be seen here http://tinypic.com/r/2m3rbya/6

    This previous experiment was to see if the ability of CO2 to trap energy by intercepting IR was balanced by its ability to radiate as IR energy it had acquired conductively.

    The two identical boxes you see are made of 25mm EPS foam (250 x 200 x 100mm volume).

    The windows in their upper surfaces are constructed of LDPE clingwrap fixed to both sides of balsawood frames to create a double glazed SW & IR transparent window with low conductive losses.

    On the interior base of each box is an identical matt black aluminium target plate (190 x 190 x 2mm)

    At one side in each box is a cardboard tunnel which shields a thermometer probe from incoming and out going radiation. A small 5v computer fan is place in each card tunnel along with angled vents at the ends of the tunnel ensures all gas in the boxes full circulate.

    Also in the base of each box is a small 5mm bleed hole that ensures the pressure in each box is constant and identical.

    Outside the boxes you can see a timber frame that suspends two identical 20w halogen lights with narrow beam at a precise height over each window.

    One box is filled with air the other with 100% CO2 from bike tire inflater cylinders.

    When running the experiment it is important to ensure that the starting temperature in each box is equal especially after filling with cold CO2. Given the low conductive losses this can take some time.

    When the experiment is run the radiation from the halogens heats the target plates and these heat the gasses. The target plates also radiate IR back out the windows. In the case of the air box the gas is heated by conduction. In the case of the CO2 box the gas is being heated by conduction and also by IR radiation from the target plate.

    In the air box cooling is primarily by radiation from the target plate. In the CO2 box cooling is by radiation from the target plate and radiation from the CO2 gas.

    The results are not what “climate science” suggests. The boxes heat at the same rate and reach the same equilibrium temperature. When the halogens are switched off the boxes cool at the same rate.

    The reason is the ability of CO2 to warm due to intercepted IR is being matched by its ability to acquire energy via conduction with the target plate and then radiate this as IR out through the window.

    This experiment http://tinypic.com/r/2m3rbya/6 covers radiation and conduction. This experiment http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg covers conduction and convection. What happens when they are combined into a single experiment that covers radiation, conduction and convection?

  129. tchannon says:

    Newcomers might be unaware.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/konrad-hartmann-experiment-to-determine-the-effect-of-pressure-on-temperature-in-earths-atmosphere/

    Constructive criticism will be welcome. Perhaps leading to another article if things look interesting.

    co-mod

  130. wayne says:

    Trick ,what I mean by “this type” is one layer by layer properly (as much as possible) show where the latent heat is removed and how much. Same for the sensible or probably the two married as one for I don’t see how you are ver going to seperate them except at the zero altitude as Trenberth did by relying on all of the other papers he refs. Same for the solar absorbed by the atmosphere, whare and how much. I was speaking of that type.

  131. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Stephen Wilde; Thinking of the set point or control of the temperature of the system.
    In a refrigeration system the operating temperature of the active fluid is set by the pressure on the liquid phase, so the average temperature of the ocean is set by the pressure on it. As the heating is on parts of the surface and not under it, the local surface might heat a bit more then the average. The mass and heat sink of the oceans are so much greater then the atmosphere, it sets the base of the energy balance. pg

  132. Stephen Wilde says:

    Still mulling things over but a question for the radiative physics chaps.

    As I understand the theory, more GHGs raise the effective radiating level (ERL) to a higher, colder location. That location being colder it radiates less to space so the region below gets warmer and the region above gets cooler hence the concept of a hot spot developing in the atmosphere below the ERL.

    Is that correct so far ?

  133. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:27am: ”…more GHGs…” do something.

    What that something might be is interesting but….

    I observe blog posters want to leap into a discussion of perturbations doing something to a system pretty much in equilibrium over long stretches of time (months to eons) w/o clearly understanding basics of how that system gets to equilibrium to begin with.

    This observation by inspection shows me they want to discuss the material in the 2nd course on atmospheric thermodynamics and/or atmospheric radiation perturbations without enough signs of a passing grade in the 1st course. Curriculum always required me to pass a 1st course as a pre-req. to getting into the much more cool advanced courses.

    My suggestion is the comment post I did 12/18 11:15pm is sort of the 1st course level in understanding an answer on topic to your top post question: “.. that would be inconsistent with the Venus comparison and with established science wouldn’t it?”

    Your suggestion to date going something like “air parcels KE&PE rising and falling is all that is needed for Earth system balance hence don’t need the concept of DWIR” is relevant in my atm. analogue. Trenberth’s 2009 cartoon coupled to 1st course text atm. thermo. & radiation heat eqn. balance, in basic 1st principle terms, shows there IS an amount of DWIR (157) needed for balance in addition to the thermals (17) & evaporation (80).

    I would suggest the atm. analogue used in my post is limited, extending past the assumptions can lead to disaster. The most one can do, if one passes that 1st course, is to start learning about perturbations in the second course IMO.

    This is why I need an editor, I am really just saying yes, there is an effective radiating level (termed in meteorologist texts effective emission level EEL). The concept of changes to EEL or a hot spot isn’t in the 1st course basic texts, that’s in the 2nd course where understanding is still being worked out IMO.

    Better for more informed discussion to 1st course agree & pass the basics or show where the basics have strengths or shortcomings before moving to “more GHGs” or “hot spots”.

    Fair enough?

  134. Stephen Wilde says:

    Evasion.

  135. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:55pm: “Evasion.”

    LOL. You then agree with 1st course classic textbook 1st principles Earth flux balance since you have offered no successful challenge, you are thinking it thru, asking good, hard questions. You see 239-239 = 0 LTE balanced flux is not 100% in the thermals KE,PE and/or latent heat since you have offered no successful challenge.

    Now you can base an answer to your own question about “…more GHGs..” on 1st principles in a 2nd more advanced course.

    1st answer: More GHGs mean there are more resident cats in greenhouses with digestive problems.

    Better answer to your question: adding infrared-active gas to an atm. mix ppm means system flux balance is perturbed. How does that happen exactly based on your 1st course of study, fill me in. I am especially interested in the new LTE flux balance if any, please fill me in.

  136. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:31 am: Thanks for re-posting the two box experiment picture. I recalled it ok. Consider an IR thermometer pointing at the box 1 on the left from the rear. It would see a glowing box with two lines not glowing as much where the ice water piping loops run down the back side – they may even appear near black.

    Point the same IR thermometer immediately at the other box 2 glowing w/no near black lines in the picture. The IR thermometer measures a different temperature for box 2; as you report so does the K-type thermometer probes.

    Comments?

  137. Max™‮‮ says:

    Uh, Trick… local thermodynamic equilibrium means that parameters like temperature are varying so slowly or not at all around a point, that you can assume there are no flows in or out of said control volume… right?

    Hypothetically, you can describe the planet as being in LTE, and you can even work out an energy budget based on that assumption.

    I didn’t make that assumption when I worked out my budget, perhaps because I worked out the energy flows per second, it would seem silly for me to say that the night side is in equilibrium with the day side or the sun.

    The day side is receiving more energy, arguably all the energy entering our volume of interest (neglecting noise like the CMBR or the conduction of internal heat beyond the surface, which isn’t zero, but won’t really change the results in any interesting or significant manner) while the entire surface takes part in redistributing that input in the various manners which atmospheres and radiating surfaces are wont to do.

    I don’t think there is actually 240 Joules per m^2 going in across the whole TOA control volume every second to balance the 240 Joules per m^2 exiting from the entire TOA control volume every second, is there?

    Actually, I would consider that a rather exceptional claim, in need of rather exceptional evidence… cartoons… well, they’re way down on the evidence hierarchy slumming around with “I know a guy who says…” and “I believe otherwise, so…”, aren’t they?

  138. Trick says:

    Max :syas 6:53 pm: “I would consider (239) a rather exceptional claim, in need of rather exceptional evidence…”

    Satellites! Flux-in density and flux-out density (239-239=0 LTE) averaged or really integrated across the spectrum. Check ‘em out.

  139. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm
    Comments?
    —————————————
    As Stephen correctly pointed out – “evasion”

    You know from my second two box experiment that cooling at a higher altitude is vital to convection. I have proved that if convection stagnates atmospheric temperatures rise. My initial experiments used radiation and conduction. My later experiments used conduction and convection.

    I have now found a way to combine convection, conduction and radiation. But you already know the outcome of the next two box experiment. AGW is physically impossible 😉

  140. Trick says:

    Konrad 6:31 pm: Gonna’ be a long boring thread each of us writing “Evasion”.

    If you evade and can’t comment discuss and successfully show why the IR thermometer would not measure different T for box 1&2, then that brings back AGW alive, unfortunately, since due to that circumstance no disproof of AGW exists in your experiment. The IR shows different temperatures – effect also exists in the atm.

  141. Max™‮‮ says:

    “Satellites! Flux-in density and flux-out density (239-239=0 LTE) averaged or really integrated across the spectrum. Check ‘em out.”

    Trick, if I wrapped the planet up at the top of the atmosphere I would find roughly 239 Joules leaving per square meter per second… I’m pretty sure if I was directly opposite the sun, I would not find 239 Joules entering per square meter per second… and I’m pretty sure if I was directly below the sun I would find a good deal more entering per square meter per second.

  142. Trick says:

    Max 8:19pm: “..if I was directly below the sun I would find a good deal more entering per square meter per second.”

    Max might but satellite averaging process accounts for this effect. It is the satellites global averaging flux density in & out that count. 239-239=0 LTE steady state. Any imbalance, the global Tavg. temperature of the surface and atm. go up & down until 239 W/m^2 is again global avg. radiated to deep space.

  143. wayne says:

    “Better answer to your question: adding infrared-active gas to an atm. mix ppm means system flux balance is perturbed. ”

    Maybe in your mind. Then show why Venus is basically identical to the Earth but the increase in pressure. I won’t say no change, but the variances are out in the 5th digit.

    If you take a planet with no GHGs and add some little by little I can see your point Trick but no atmosphere is like that, they all have adequate GHGs and that is the key, adequate. Earth has some 95% of its co2 in the base energy level. You add more and there is just more in the base energy level.

  144. Trick says:

    wayne 9:29 pm: “..show why Venus is basically identical to the Earth…”.

    P=density*R*T (the planetary form of PV=nRT)

    Works exactly the same on both planets. Adjust the atm. density for orbits (as measured by probes radio occultation experiments on Venus atm. refraction); at that orbit adjusted density, find wherever the P field is the same as Earth on Venus, the Venus T field will be the same as Earth. This should not be much of a mystery, but it seems to be.

    Both planets exhibit a surface temperature higher than expected if respective atm. emissivities were hypothetically set = 0. Venus much more so due to increased surface pressure and much higher tropopause with similar lapse rates.

    Adding more infrared-active molecules in base level KE, means statistically more will be higher than base level KE in Earth’s T field.

  145. Stephen Wilde says:

    In view of Trick’s evasion I will follow hrough without him.

    AGW theory proposes that the Effective Emission Level (EEL) rises to a colder location so that less radiation leaves the system such that the temperature below the EEL must rise to restore equilibrium.

    For the EEL to rise to a colder level requires that there be no atmospheric expansion.

    If atmospheric expansion occurs (as does in fact happen) then the temperature of the EEL remains the same but it rises to a higher level.

    That has two consequences

    i) More KE is converted to PE which ensures that surface temperature does not rise.

    ii) The expanded atmosphere with a higher EEL at the same temperature as previously will radiate to space more effectively not less effectively and that increased radiative effectiveness cancels the thermal effect of the increased GHGs.

    Reverse the scenario if the net effect of GHGs is actually cooling.

  146. wayne says:

    But that is my entire point Trick.

    “Both planets exhibit a surface temperature higher than expected if respective atm. emissivities were hypothetically set = 0. Venus much more so due to increased surface pressure and much higher tropopause with similar lapse rates.”

    Everyone homes in on the surface, surface, surface. I understand – that is where we live. But the real point everyone should home in on is at about the 250 hPa level. All planets and moons with a thick enough atmosphere to even have a troposphere all tend to line up at this pressure. Why? Don’t really know. I suspect line thinning and the huge increases in the extinction length of any atmosphere’s GHG gases.

    The distance from the sun matters. The composition of the atmosphere’s heat capacities matters.

    But the atmosphere’s heat capacities of Venus to Earth points to very little influence in the co2 to temperature. Venus has about 2400 times more co2 than Earth. So let’s add GHG’s (co2) to double it, to bring the Earth closer to Venus’s atmosphere, the change should follow what Venus experiences by the measurements:

    (7.8 K/km – 6.5 K/km) * 400 ppmv / 965000 ppmv or about +0.0005 K/km * 11 km or about 0.005 K by changing the lapse rate at the same proportions that is seen in Venus’s atmosphere profiles and extending it to the surface.

    That is why I said it is not that there is absolutely zero change, but the change seems to be very minimal. Is that what you were explaining but from a slightly different direction?

  147. Max™‮‮ says:

    Kinda exhausted, got some cash in and was able to do some upgrading on the computer, between dealing with one awful amazon seller (screw you too, Importer520), and a couple of great ones… plus the pleasant surprise of finding out my sexy little 22 inch 1920×1080 will be here tomorrow though they gave the expected delivery as sometime next week, monday at the earliest… well, I’m beat, but loving the idea of more space to work in.

    Just got a brief comment, Trick, you said “Max might but satellite averaging process accounts for this effect. It is the satellites global averaging flux density in & out that count. 239-239=0 LTE steady state. Any imbalance, the global Tavg. temperature of the surface and atm. go up & down until 239 W/m^2 is again global avg. radiated to deep space.” earlier.

    I don’t care how you average it, you can’t get 239 Joules entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere on the day side and night side in the same second.

    The product of an unphysical average is worth exactly as much as it avoids confusion… in this case it does nothing but present an unrealistic picture of the energy transfers, honestly it bothered me to put day side and night side averages in my budget, when honestly I should have had a column of figures for each temperature marked on the planet… and even at that it still bothers me to average temperatures across any distance.

    What does it mean to say that the average temperature of here and some location hundreds of miles away is such-and-such degrees?

    At what point does that temperature represent an actual portion of the system?

    I like the example of a cup with an ice cube and a cup with water just below the boiling point… is there any sense to an average there?

    Is any part of the system actually at 50 C?

    I’m sure there is a point in between the cups where the air could wind up at 50 C for however long… does that say anything about the cups?

  148. Trick says:

    Stephen 11:02pm: “For the EEL to rise to a colder level requires that there be no atmospheric expansion.”

    There is no such requirement. Even if there was, it couldn’t be well defined anyways. Physically, the effective emission level corresponds to the optimal trade-off between high density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atmosphere to permit the emitted radiation to escape. All that requires is the assumption that atm. density follow = density of the infrared-active gas*e^-z/H where H is the constant scale height.

    Well, also the infrared-active gas needs be well mixed. All this is so esoteric, talking about EEL is better left to evasive tactics or to study on a 3rd level course. You can live a good life and be a big & strong blog commenter without discussing or dissing EEL.

    Especially what happens to EEL when discussing “…more GHGs…”; if there are more resident cats in greenhouses, EEL in LTE might stay the same, go up, go down & who cares when we live on the surface. Too esoteric, stick to basics just evade discussing the EEL – it really is best left to advanced discourse AFTER getting the basics down pat. Doesn’t affect anything in the 1st principle radiative balance stuff.

    Especially certain Stephen cannot use EEL to keep near surface Tavg. the same for eons when he writes: “(EEL) ensures that surface temperature does not rise.” When what really happens according to 1st principles – any imbalance in 239-239=0, the global Tavg. temperature of the surface and atm. go up & down until 239 W/m^2 is again global avg. radiated to deep space.

    ******

    wayne 11:03pm: “Is that what you were explaining but from a slightly different direction?”

    I think so. Interested more in the 250 hPa level homing-in, what’s that all about?

    ******

    Max 3:07 am: Yes, averaging process is a dilemma that both helps and hinders understanding. The average shoe size may fit no foot in the whole mall.

    Your working in joules is confusing, time is not well in the thermo world. Little is learned about time applying the thermo laws; caused Maxwell and Gibbs relentlessly start out essays “First let the macro thermo system stabilize in equilibrium…”. Meaning DT/dt=0 NOT T=same everywhere.

  149. Stephen Wilde says:

    “any imbalance in 239-239=0, the global Tavg. temperature of the surface and atm. go up & down until 239 W/m^2 is again global avg. radiated to deep space.”

    You suggest that BOTH surface temperature rises AND atmosphere expands but as per the ideal gas law it is one OR the other.

    The surface temperature only needs to rise if the atmosphere does NOT expand and that is implicit in the AGW theory where it says that the EEL rises to a colder point. If the atmosphere expanded the EEL would be at the same temperature and not a colder temperature.

    No need to change the surface temperature if the entire atmosphere expands and contracts as necessary instead.

    The conversion of more KE to PE if the atmosphere expands will keep surface temperature stable and the GHGs then being at a greater height will radiate to space more effectively which offsets the thermal effect of more GHGs.

    Simple really.

  150. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick

    PV = nRT

    You do realise that ‘V’ and ‘T’ are on opposite sides of the equation don’t you ?

    Expand volume and temperature falls.

    Decrease volume and temperature increases.

    So,

    If one tries to raise T but volume increases then T doesn’t change.

    To raise equilibrium temperature one must find an energy source that can both increase T and V at the same time which is where mass, gravity and insolation come in because each of them increases the total energy available to the system which is what is needed to raise both T and V together.

    Radiative features of molecules do not increase the total energy available to the system so they can only EITHER raise T OR V and not both.

    Since the atmosphere is open to space V increases readily so T does not increase.

  151. Stephen Wilde says:

    Interesting thought about the equation PV + nRT.

    P being pressure does not change at the surface because however much the atmosphere expands it has the same weight at the surface as long as it remains within the gravitational field.

    So on the face of it increasing V should increase the total value of PV.

    That cannot apply away from the surface because we see that a gas cools as it rises to fill a larger volume.

    The answer is that if the atmosphere expands then the average pressure on each parcel of gas at any given height within the atmosphere falls resulting overall in increased conversion of KE to PE and increased drop in T as a result of adiabatic expansion as compared to what would have happened with the lower volume.

    So, within the air and off the ground, any attempt to increase T from the radiative characteristics of certain molecules only gives rise to expansion which gives an increase in V combined with a fall in average P through the vertical column and so T need not change because PV remains the same as before the expansion.

    I can’t speak for others but previously I assumed P as a constant but that is only true at the surface. Away from the surface P varies inversely with the volume of the atmosphere which is why T doesn’t increase from more GHGs in the air.

    Rather than using the common form of the Ideal Gas Law one should use the molar form

    That form of the ideal gas law is very useful because it links pressure, density, and temperature in a unique formula independent of the quantity of the considered gas.

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

  152. Stephen Wilde says:

    Please regard the above three posts as thnking aloud. There are some portions I’m not yet happy with.

  153. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:30 & 10:00am: “You suggest that BOTH surface temperature rises AND atmosphere expands but as per the ideal gas law it is one OR the other…PV = nRT….P being pressure does not change at the surface…an increase in V combined with a fall in average P through the vertical column and so T need not change”

    It is good Stephen is thinking aloud. Stephen points out PV=nRT must hold, T goes as P*V then since mass n is constant. You do not explicitly mention density, it is important. P=density*R*T.

    Take a moment to look here for a daily T and P trace.

    http://www.manesty.co.uk/live-2/weather-today/

    When I looked I observed pressure changing near the surface! And OMG T not following P at times! Does this invalidate PV=nRT or P=density*R*T? Noooo…… Is your V at TOA changing exactly in the amount necessary, global atm. density changing exactly right?

    How many times have you been told that cold air is denser than warmer air? This statement is true only if qualified by the assertion that pressure is constant. Note there is no obvious relation between pressure and temperature in that trace. Sometimes temperature goes up and pressure goes down. Sometimes temperature goes up and pressure goes up. The moral is the ideal gas law is not a good predictor of anything unless it can be supplemented with a constraint: Air density goes up as temperature goes down, provided that pressure is constant.

    Here pressure is not constant by measurement. Note lack of any obvious relation between T & P.

  154. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:30am: “No need to change the surface temperature if the entire atmosphere expands and contracts as necessary instead.”

    Yet the surface T changes. Simple really. Stephen backslides a bit considering PV=nRT after making some good radiative thinking progress shown by asking good, hard questions.

    “Radiative features of molecules do not increase the total energy available to the system so they can only EITHER raise T OR V and not both.”

    Remember Stephen’s “…more GHGs…”? More radiative features can slow the cooling making more energy available and raising the global surface Tavg. while holding 239-239-0.

    Let’s review Trenberth balance heat eqn from 1st principles in my 12/18 11:15pm post:

    Trenberth uses Mar. 2000 to May 2004 period input data, so adjust to that atm. emissivity = .793, surface (L&O) emissivity = 1.0 (rounded), gross insolation 1365.7 W/m^2:

    (1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.793/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289.1K

    239 – (396-157) = 0 in LTE

    239-239 = 0 in LTE

    Dump in enough Stephen’s “…more GHGs…” really infrared active atm. gas to get to atm. emissivity of say 0.82 which I was using in the other thread:

    (1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.82/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 290.7K

    239 – (405-166) = 0 in LTE

    239-239=0 at LTE.

    Near surface Tavg. increased 1.6K rounded from 289.1K to 290.7K.

    Trenberth’s 396 surface radiation UWIR goes to 405 from 396 and the DWIR from the atm. all by itself goes to 166 from 157 all in W/m^2 (as a component of the 333 which goes to 342) .

    Simple 1st course study really. No mention of EEL, no energy’s or entropy’s harmed.

  155. wayne says:

    Stephen, your right over long periods, the pressure governed by gravity and mass is the sure constant and then the V & density maintain their relationship.

    I think Trick has switched feet again and is now speaking of momentary weather. He’s right, in short periods, those three P, T & density can vary in sometimes strange combos but the relation of the tree still holds, we just can’t measure the density easily.

    On your “You suggest that BOTH surface temperature rises AND atmosphere expands but as per the ideal gas law it is one OR the other…PV ”

    Yes, even over diurnal ranges with pressure forced constant at each pressure level if you add energy near the surface BOTH the T and V do change. Look closely at what Cp and Cv physically represent, part of the energy goes to increase temperature but an atmosphere in simple words has its own frictionless “piston” and some of the energy will do work on the column and cause expansion. It’s not an either/or.

    Look at PV=nRT as P=ρRT, that doesn’t say volume and T cannot both change. You are thinking of the impossible case where energy is added near the surface and some other force pulls the column higher to KEEP the T constant… there the work is from external and only V changed.

    You also say “That cannot apply away from the surface because we see that a gas cools as it rises to fill a larger volume.” That IS why the temperature does not change as much as if there was a physical cap limiting the atmospheres volume… it’s a partial split between V & T and Cp and Cv define how much the temperature rise is suppressed by the expansion in the volume. IOW, you are adding energy and the temperature never drops as you mentioned, it just doesn’t go up as much as without the expansion.

  156. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    You still haven’t addressed the following issues:

    i) What is the thermal effect at the surface of an expanded atmosphere containing more PE at the expense of KE ?

    ii) How large is the increase in the rate of energy loss to space from that expanded atmosphere ?

    It seems from observations that those two (cooling) consequences of an expanded atmosphere are capable of preventing any surface warming.

  157. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne said:

    ” even over diurnal ranges with pressure forced constant at each pressure level if you add energy near the surface BOTH the T and V do change.”

    Granted that must be true on a diurnal basis because the amont of insolation increases on the day side and I agree that insolation affects both T and V.

    The question is whether radiative characteristics have the same effect given that they add nothing to the total amount of energy that the system can hold given the constraints of mass and gravity.

    and:

    “Stephen, your right over long periods, the pressure governed by gravity and mass is the sure constant and then the V & density maintain their relationship”

    Aren’t we considering the longer term climate consequences?

    i.e after the circulation has had time to adapt to the imbalances caused by a change in radiative characteristics?

    Either the total amount of incoming solar energy that the system can hold is limited by mass and gravity or it is not.

    Which is it?

  158. Trick says:

    Stephen 6:56pm: These are good, reasonable questions. Bravo. Deserve a reasonable answer.

    i) The problem with talking about an expanded atm. is the details. Easy to think, hard to solve. The TOA for this purpose is where exactly? Need to know that to get volume before & volume after. Then what? It doesn’t change anything obvious in Trenberth stuff or the heat eqn.
    ii) How large? I suppose one could try to employ some sphere radiation stuff, I have seen this tried on other blogs. I have not seen any conclusions that make the 1st course basic textbook stuff need a do-over.

    Here is a hint for you being such a persistent dude.

    Maybe I can shape the thread into something useful. Debating the “adiabatic” thermals are important – they increase so no need for DWIR, writing no GHE, using TOA V changing so no Tavg. change, using rain/latent heat circulation, using oceans, using small lab experiments for an atm., I think are weak points to pursue. The much stronger flows are the ones to go after.

    The weakness right in the heat balance eqn. should be obvious and I have been waiting for someone to pick that up and copy and paste something like this:

    (1365.7 * 0.6845)/4 – sigma*(1-0.82/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289.1K

    233.7 – (396.1 – 162.4) = 0 at LTE

    233.7 – 233.7 = 0 at LTE

    Hey Stephen’s claim no change in near surface global Tavg. in the face of “…more GHGs…” is correct if albedo just goes up to 0.3155 from 0.3 when LTE arrives. And you know what? I have no defense for that! Albedo just might change to compensate for the “…more GHGs…”.

    There is only 1 heat eqn. and 2 variables (albedo & atm. emissivity).

    Discuss.

  159. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well, Trick, assuming GHGs have a net warming effect there would be an increase in thermals and more clouds.

    If GHGs have a net cooling effect there would be weaker thermals and less cloud.

    Either way, a negative system response and in each case there would be a change in global circulation and climate zone positioning albeit miniscule as compared to natural such changes.

    I regret that I don’t have the experience to critique the maths part of your posts properly.

  160. Trick says:

    And all those might change the albedo, that should be the focus of your thinking, no need for eqn.s to think it thru. No one has solved it all yet.

  161. Stephen Wilde says:

    My thinking has been a very long trek working back from my observation that when the late 20th century warming spell began the climate zones shifted poleward and that around 2000 they started shifting equatorward again.

    It was clear from those observations that GHGs had little relevance but that solar variations correlated nicely.

    Furthermore I’m pretty sure that from my schooldays it was generally accepted that atmospheric mass and gravity resulting in atmospheric ‘thickness’ and ‘density’ were the reasons for the warming effect that was even then described as a greenhouse effect.

    The idea of a greenhouse gas scenario as opposed to atmospheric mass and gravity then seems to have taken over but we now see that it has no predictive capability and so must be flawed.

    As you would see from my other articles I do indeed see albedo as critical because it affects total solar energy able to enter the oceans so as to fuel the system.

    Thus my contention that global cloudiness varies as top down solar and bottom up oceanic variations interact to alter climate zone positioning, jet stream tracks, global cloudiness and albedo.

    So, as you will see, this thread is just a small part of a more extensive general climate overview and I have indeed been focusing closely on albedo all along.

  162. Max™‮‮ says:

    Trick, I like to work in Joules because it illustrates exactly how absurd it is to average W/m^2 over day and night.

    Watts are Joules per Second, right?

    So 1 Watt per square meter means each second there is 1 Joule coming or going across that surface.

    If we look at that square meter (and assume it is near enough the equator) we’ll see a certain number of Joules coming and going (assuming it’s a transparent sheet at the top of the atmosphere, again, to make it easier) and we are going to assume further that the outgoing value doesn’t change from 239 Joules per second.

    Each day after dawn the incoming value starts near 0, and every second after it gradually rises towards a peak of 1361 Joules for the second or so when the sun is directly perpendicular to the surface.

    After that it drops towards 0, and then for the next half of the day, every second there are still 239 Joules leaving through this surface, but 0 entering (ignoring things like moonshine/starlight/CMBR, not 0, but not enough to change the calculation significantly enough to deal with right here) so this surface is now 0 Joules in, 239 Joules out per second for ~12 hours.

    During the day it starts out losing energy at a slower and slower rate, then at some point it hits 239 Joules in and 239 Joules out per second, after which it begins gaining energy, 300, 400, 500 Joules in, 239 Joules out.

    At no point beyond the two brief periods where 239 Joules come and 239 Joules go would you say this system was in equilibrium.

    Not even the rate of change is constant unless you expand the period you examine beyond 24 hours.

    Looking at a system spread over 24 hours is not very useful when you lose the actual flows due to your average.

    Why, if you did that you might actually believe the planet only receives 239 Joules per second per square meter!

    That is completely wrong, though, and so we can safely discard the absurd notion that the planet would only be warmed to 255 K by the sun.

    We can confirm this by looking at the moon, which is warmed to a far higher temperature each lunar day, peaking at 390 K, which is close to the value you’d expect given the amount of energy the sun puts out at this distance.

    Naturally the night side is far cooler, dropping to 150 K or less, which isn’t really possible to explain if you assume it is constantly illuminated.

    In fact there is no location which this averaging process accurately describes, so I must ask why it is used?

    My alternative doesn’t suffer from this problem, http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o396/maxarutaru/science/daynightbudget_zps55e9bde5.png

    It makes me wonder for what reason something like the Trenberth version would remain in use at all, maybe it’s just me?

  163. Trick says:

    Trenberth stuff serves to put a magnitude on the flows, can move past some DWIR, some UWIR, some thermals balance the rest of net solar.

    Ok, put Max down for preferring a 24-hr period:

    20,649,600 – 20,649,600 = 0 joules in LTE.

    Oddly, that does seem more precise. Well, you’re cutting down my Fri. night bar bill, time to go.

  164. Max™‮‮ says:

    Now, that is true, but I actually prefer two 12 hour periods because it is more accurate.

  165. wayne says:

    Well, Trick, assuming GHGs have a net warming effect there would be an increase in thermals and more clouds.

    If GHGs have a net cooling effect there would be weaker thermals and less cloud.

    **

    Stephen, it could be both and I’m moving quickly that direction. I drew an x axis labeled T and a vertical axis for altitude in the middle of the paper and label that the as the current surface temperature and normalized to zero. That is the isothermal profile that an ideal zero emitting atmosphere would take, straight up, 0 K/km.

    Now, add some GHGs. They absorb a great amount of energy right at the surface due to the density, maximum at the surface and tapering off as you go up. That pushes the bottom of the y axis to the right or hotter. At the tropopause you get the dumping of the heat to space, maximized lower when still denser and tapering as you go higher. That pushes the top of the y axis to the left or cooler temperature. That is the 6.5 K/km we have.

    Didn’t it require both? Warming at the bottom and cooling at the top? Add more GHG’s and it would lean even further toward the 9.8 K/km DALR meaning it then cools faster as you rise. Does it absorb more right at the surface making it warmer? It seems no, all co2 lines are absorbed very low. SoD said one meter, that is 5 path lengths or 5 meters for absorption of all but 1%, that seems way too short a mean path length to me.

    Nahle and some others have computed around 10 meters, or 50 meters to 1% absorption, seems more realistic. Some have said 100 meters, 500 meter to 1% absorption, but 8000 meters for all but 1% seems way, way to long unless someone can show why or how measured.

    Could it be 8000 meters? Yes, the primary emission is not spontaneous emission, it is simulated emission. that is when an excited molecule is hit by another photon. Most references will be about lasers for that is the property that makes them possible but the same happens to every IR gas, not only sometimes but about 10,000 times more possible than spontaneous emissions. On top of that in the thick of a tropopause the collision of the molecules are so numerous thermalization rules. If a molecule gets excited by a collision it is simply re-thermalized and rarely emits unless it is stimulated emission. The equations to compute this are rather simple, try them, they are frequency dependent with a lot of ‘h’, ‘c’, ‘kB’ ‘pi’ etc but the frequency gives you the spontaneous to stimulated ratio.

    All of this is on the web, stick to the university sites, search for “site:edu Einstein coefficients radiation” and read ten or so, skip the derivations of the coefficients unless you just love deep math. I’ve read about 25 and you start to get a very good understanding, though one single site never seems to lay it all out for you. 😦

  166. wayne says:

    Trick,

    “Interested more in the 250 hPa level homing-in, what’s that all about?”

    Trick, I’ve spent hours looking for that graphic, can’t seem to re-locate it. It was even thrown up on one of wuwt post or in a comments a year or two, maybe three years ago… oh no, not dig through 4500 post… won’t go there yet. I believe it was either from NASA or maybe within a paper.

    It has about eight planets and moons with thick tropopauses plus mars with pressure levels (log I think) vs. temperature, their profiles. Mars is the only one way “out there”, it basically only has a stratosphere. All of the others turned from their more or less linear lapse rates to a more or totally vertical slope and all were within 50 mb of each other if I remember right.

    I’m curious too, why all at basically the same pressure? The compositions might explain why they are all not exactly the same pressure but solar irradiance seemed to have no effect.

    I’ll keep an eye out for that one… it might be while.

  167. Max™‮‮ says:

    Thanks for the fascinating link, tchannon, from one geek to another, mad props yo!

    Yes though, that is the sort of thing I am thinking of, a spherical rotating surface exposed to radiation from (effectively) a single direction isn’t the sort of thing I would expect to equilibrate unless you smooth the variations out excessively.

    I suppose if you want to call the general value around which the temperature swings and variations tend to return “equilibrium”, but that seems a bit silly too.

    Where the idea that the climate is unusually steady came from I will never know.

  168. Stephen Wilde says:

    wayne.

    I’m also coming to the view that the effect of GHGs is a net zero with no effect on surface temperature.

    Instead, as you say, the GHGs deform the lapse rate in one direction where they are more numerous and the system response deforms the lapse rate in the other direction elsewhere so as to preserve the ideal lapse rate overall. This all happens off the surface which remains largely unaffected except by way of a redistribution of the available surface energy between constantly varying climate zones.

    We can see this to some extent in the differences between the troposphere and stratosphere lapse rates.

    Water vapour is a condensing GHG in the troposphere so its presence deforms the lapse rate but being a condensing GHG it counters its own thermal effect by transferring surface energy upwards more quickly via the transport of latent heat from surface to tropopause.

    Ozone is a non condensing GHG and has such a strong warming effect that it actually reverses the lapse rate between tropopause and stratopause.

    Interesting too that ozone works by absorbing incoming solar rather than by absorbing upward longwave and so I think that the characteristics of each GHG are very different such that they should not all be lumped together.

    Thus:

    i) Water vapour is a condensing GHG with a net cooling effect due to its part in the water cycle.

    ii) Ozone is a non condensing GHG and responds to solar incoming rather than longwave outgoing (but I am sure both are involved).

    iii) CO2 is non condensing but unlike ozone responds to longwave outgoing rather than solar incoming and being mostly in the troposphere its effect is cancelled by the variable speed of that part of the adiabatic loop which operates below the tropopause and which incorporates the cooling effect of the water cycle.

    iv) Above the tropopause CO2 is very limited and its effect likely swamped by ozone responses to variations in the wavelengths and particles from changing solar activity.

    And in the end it is total atmospheric mass rather than composition that fixes the surface temperature for any given strength of gravitational field and level of solar input so to some extent we are arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin.

    Whatever the effects of the radiative characteristics of GHGs any attempt that they might make to alter the actual lapse rate or rates away from the ideal lapse rate is simply negated by circulation changes that also result in changes in albedo.

    It cannot be otherwise if atmospheres are to be retained.

  169. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:27 pm: “It cannot be otherwise if atmospheres are to be retained.”

    It CAN be otherwise and obey all the natural laws; atmospheres can be retained with constant higher LTE surface temperature in the face of more infrared active gas ppm if the albedo doesn’t change to match EXACTLY to the 4th decimal place. You offer no evidence albedo must change so exactly. In fact, inspection of nature shows it doesn’t happen.

    Inspection in the age of near surface global thermometer fields shows such a global Tavg. change is occurring give or take. Neither albedo, TOA height, thermals have changed to exactly compensate. So there is evidence it IS otherwise, global Tavg. increases and Earth’s atm. is retained. The experiment continues.

  170. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Inspection in the age of near surface global thermometer fields shows such a global Tavg. change is occurring give or take. Neither albedo, TOA height, thermals have changed to exactly compensate”

    The near surface thermometer fields are affected by inadequately quantified UHI effects and by distribution bias in that they are mostly situated in regions that would see an effect from shifting climate zones. It is likely that the distribution of energy across the surface does change but without a significant change in total system energy content.

    Satellites are far better and so far show much less variability. The variability they do show is most likely just variability around a mean as the internal system processes lag behind natural solar and oceanic forcing elements for a while.

    There is no evidence to the effect that albedo, TOA height or thermals have failed to compensate. If they were to fail to compensate then that failure would over time lead to a loss of the atmosphere by way of a permanent divergence from the ideal lapse rate.

    You have had two reluctant ‘ding’ moments during the course of our exchanges on this thread and another thread.

    In both cases you eventually conceded that my proposals could work given the parameters that I was applying.

    If you think they do not work then it is for you to prove it and so far the failure of global temperature to follow CO2 trends over the past 15 years or so seems to be supporting my view rather than yours.

  171. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:43 pm: “You have had two reluctant ‘ding’ moments during the course of our exchanges on this thread and another thread. In both cases you eventually conceded that my proposals could work given the parameters that I was applying.”

    Oh man talk about rewriting history, see Stephen backslide? Trick is still using same formula in this thread that Stephen reluctantly conceded for clarity:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality/#comment-37479

    Stephen 12/6 9:49 pm: “To clarify, the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    Trick 12/6 10:12 pm: “^ding^ Now you are talking. I think you may have it!”

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

    ******

    It is interesting to watch argument against evidence in nature and try to understand why the argument must be wrong. If Stephen were right, the Tavg. global anomaly would be so boring in the face of more infrared active ppm, constant gross insolation & constant atm. mass. Charts showing it over past decades and about a century would show monthly anomaly series like this, more infrared active gas, albedo changes to compensate exactly keeping near surface global Tavg. constant to retain the atm.:

    Monthly anomaly over 30 year Tavg: 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0,0.0, 0.0…..

    Or maybe it takes a month for nature to compute response needed to compensate w/albedo:

    Monthly anomaly: 0.0, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1, +0.1, -0.1…

    Does any GHCN workout show this even close? Noooo….

    It must be the UHI effect or the EEL right?….LOL.

  172. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:43 pm continues: “If you think they do not work then it is for you to prove it and so far the failure of global temperature to follow CO2 trends over the past 15 years or so seems to be supporting my view rather than yours.”

    Stephen is paying attention to recent news. Yes. Check that global Tavg. trend out over 30 years though, still within the LT trend upper and lower limits.

    Yes, there are also climate cycles, ocean cycles, insolation cycles, planetary cycles, galaxy orbit cycles (in-plane & up/down). But the atm. emissivity trend is steady UP with a short seasonal cycle as nature takes in infrared active CO2 gas then doesn’t as much as recorded at Mauna Loa.

  173. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    For the sake of logic I pointed out in the previous thread that DWIR (if any) must match UWIR in excess of the solar throughput if the atmosphere is to be retained.

    You agreed.

    Then in this thread I suggested that we replace DWIR with PE being replaced by KE as air descends to the surface.

    Again, you agreed.

    So, given the parameters that I applied, your maths showed that my proposals were possible.

    The only issue left is whether my proposals are a more accurate reflection of reality than yours.

    So far the evidence is favouring my propositions.

    If global warming takes off again without a more active sun and / or without a positive PDO and / or without a more positive AO and / or without more zonal jets then I would revisit your proposals.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    And don’t underestimate the scale of variability possible from natural causation. In terms of comfort for human activities the natural variability is far from boring. Indeed it has destroyed civilisations time and time again.

    The main periodicity in the natural system appears to be around 1000 to 1500 years. I suggest you read about Bond Events.

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

  174. Trick says:

    “The only issue left is whether my proposals are a more accurate reflection of reality than yours.”

    No! We agree on basics:

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

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

    Gotta’ go, more later, find out where we differ. Nature is the arbiter.

  175. Stephen Wilde says:

    “But the atm. emissivity trend is steady UP with a short seasonal cycle as nature takes in infrared active CO2 gas then doesn’t as much as recorded at Mauna Loa.”

    I take it that you are unaware of the Earthshine project then ?

    Global albedo decreased during the warming spell but has been increasing since around 2000.

    During the warming spell global cloudiness decreased as did global albedo
    (reflectivity as seen from space) which is consistent with poleward shifting jets
    but the Earthshine project now shows us that both global cloudiness and global
    albedo are increasing again since the late 90s:

    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf

    Increased cloudiness and albedo are indications that the climate system is
    receiving less solar energy overall and is therefore a sign of reducing energy
    content for the system as a whole contrary to AGW theory.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to ocean heat content over the next
    few years. There are suggestions that it recently peaked and may start to trend
    down and if does turn downwards that will confirm the significance of the
    cloudiness and albedo changes.

    From this article:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

  176. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Nature is the arbiter”

    Agreed.

    I take that as evidence that you are agenda free 🙂

  177. Trick says:

    Yes Stephen, I am an agenda free zone. I go with wherever 1st principle science leads.

    When I read something that conflicts with what I observe in nature, as I replied before, first I think someone else must have noticed also and done the work to figure why nature works in the way it does so I just go find that work and if it is traceable back to text book 1st principles I am likely to get it. If not traceable to a text book, I figure the work must be by a space alien that can’t communicate to me or doesn’t “get” Earth text book 1st principles.

    The Earthshine stuff I have heard about, thanks for the Eos article, don’t recall seeing it, I will work thru it.

    “…a loss of the atmosphere by way of a permanent divergence from the ideal lapse rate.”

    No; just picture a new, higher near surface atm. Tavg. as recorded by GHCN thermometers over last century+. The ideal lapse rate then starts out at a slightly higher Tavg. (named To the potential temperature) at approx. 1000mb surface P and permanently diverges following the same exact curve lapse rate only a little higher T(p) at each pressure layer T(p) = To*((P(z)/P0)^R/Cp) off only 10% from standard atm. (env. lapse) at top all the way up to tropopause where weirder but likewise natural stuff begins.

    Need another text book for that stratosphere+ stuff, but it is readily available – the work has been done. Aero engineers figured it out close enough to fly SR71 thru in ’60s – see Kelly Johnson & skunk works.

    You can also use the approx. lapse rate –g/Cp in the troposphere starting out a little higher Tavg. at surface, a little higher T(p) going to top at tropopause, you will be only about 20% off standard atm. T at top at tropopause, so it is close enough as I have said for government work.

  178. Trick says:

    “…close enough as I have said for government work.”

    Perhaps you do not get this wry sense of humor of mine. On a civilian contract, engineers know the customer wants hi profit margins so might use a factor of safety of 1.0. Then they gotta’ figure science out working precisely to like 0% error, by working hard at night & weekends to make their delivery dates & they would use the standard atm. environmental lapse rate not the exact off 10% or the approximate lapse off 20% give or take.

    On a government contract, the gov. as a customer isn’t as interested in profit margins, so the gov. specifies a 1.5 safety margin and engineers beef it up accordingly. So they can use easy science like –g/Cp and be off by 20%, because then there is still a 1.2 safety margin as the gov. is paying higher than it really needs, so off by 20% became known as “good enough for gov. work”.

  179. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “No; just picture a new, higher near surface atm. Tavg. as recorded by GHCN thermometers over last century+. The ideal lapse rate then starts out at a slightly higher Tavg.”

    Of course I can picture that and of course with a radiative only model providing a single control volume it is inevitable, just as you say.

    But you should now try to envisage the non radiative processes operating in parallel and being variable as regards the speed of energy transmission through them. Higher or faster thermals as an example.More or less clouds as another. Latitudinally shifting climate zones as yet another.

    Then you have a second opposite signed control volume whereby a higher Tavg is not necessary.

    The difference between us is that you currently see observations as supporting the single control volume scenario whereas I see observations as supporting the double oppositely signed control volume scenario.

    You have conceded that the maths does not disprove the possibility of my scenario.

    Nature will be the arbiter but a 15 year temperature standstill possibly about to turn downward despite greatly increased CO2 emissions is a good starting point for me.

    As for the real world being close enough for government work, does it not occur to you that that is precisely because the effects of our GHG emissions actually are negated by, or insignificant in relation to, natural variations ?

    I don’t see any of the government work involving the standard atmosphere having had to be adjusted as a result of human GHG emissions.

    Do you ?

  180. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:27pm: “…radiative characteristics of GHGs any attempt that they might make to alter the actual lapse rate or rates away from the ideal lapse rate is simply negated by circulation changes that also result in changes in albedo.”

    I could be watching Diehard 10, or bantering with Stephen, easy choice.

    Let’s put this to the test where we agree, and use Trenberth cartoon as good enough for gov. work:
    “Stephen 12/6 9:49 pm: “To clarify, the UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    Trick 12/6 10:12 pm: “^ding^ Now you are talking. I think you may have it!”

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

    239-239=0

    Or for Max reading along & preferring a 24-hr period:

    20,649,600 – 20,649,600 = 0 joules in LTE.

    ******

    Plop some more bazillion gigatons of infrared active gas into Earth’s atm. Atm. emissivity goes up quickly b/c the text books tell us about radiative effects of polyatomic molecules active in 15micon band and collisions between molecules tend to quickly equalize the distribution of the total energy in a gas parcel among the molecule’s KE “storage” mechanisms. This also ensures that any radiative energy absorbed or emitted by a medium will quickly give rise to a commensurate change in the physical temperature of that medium.

    The DWIR (Trenberth’s 333) from atm. goes up (as does the 169). As Stephen writes, UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained. So UWIR goes up to retain the atm. Denote this equiv. amount with + signs.

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

    239-239=0 W/m^2 or 20,649,600 – 20,649,600 = 0 joules in 24hrs for Max.

    Stephen agrees (^ding^) b/c as Stephen writes, UWIR must always match DWIR if the atm. is to be retained.

    Since UWIR goes up, the global near surface Tavg. must goes up per text book. Tavg.+ and this is what we see in nature over century+ GHCN thermometer measurements give or take.

    Stephen agrees with nature, to retain the atm., Tavg. goes up establishing a new T(z) but same lapse rate whether 20% off -g/Cp, 10% off exact ideal or environmental standard atm. lapse.

    Now Eos article says the albedo has been changing recently. I can buy this at first sight b/c the recent anomaly curves don’t track Mauna Loa CO2 curve. I buy the albedo changes in a way to make the anomaly stagger and not imitate either albedo+ or atm emissivity+ especially with all the T cycles staggering things too. All traceable 1st principles, no energy or entropy harmed, all measured and observed, no arm waving.

    When albedo goes up, something else happens. No longer have 239-239=0. As I showed above, might have 233.7-233.7=0 a different ballpark now, we’ve moved to the visitor’s city playing the same game, shorter home run distance down the line.

  181. Stephen Wilde says:

    No Trick.

    You must accept that the mechanical processes running in parallel with the radiative processes are oppositely signed and provide a second control volume.

    No DWIR, just KE returning to the surface by way of reconversion of PE in descending air.

    UWIR always equalling DWIR but only at top of atmosphere. Anything can happen within the atmosphere as long as there is balance at the top.Imbalance at the top loses the atmosphere if maintained over enough time. Divergence from the ideal lapse rate inevitably produces an imbalance at the top.

    Each layer boundary within the atmosphere can have a local imbalance between DWIR and UWIR but such imbalance is a result of changes in the KE / PE balance (circulation induced) and not causative of anything.

    Have to leave it there and hope that readers see the point even if you don’t.

  182. Trick says:

    “Then you have a second opposite signed control volume whereby a higher Tavg is not necessary.”

    Albedo changes to the 12th decimal offset atm. emissivity to 12th decimal would show no stagger in anomaly, but there is a staggering anomaly. This offset does not happen exactly, there is a staggering upwards Tavg. over century+. Albedo change up is slightly behind atm. emissivity up at the moment, Tavg. slightly higher.

    We continue to run the experiment to find what happens to the albedo & atm. emissivity balance in nature.

    “I don’t see any of the government work involving the standard atmosphere having had to be adjusted as a result of human GHG emissions. Do you ?”

    Yeah, I do, since in 1976 standard atm. To was 286.9K. Trenberth tells us 287K (’61-’90) and today measured last couple decade Tavg. like 288K. Tomorrow? Infinity and beyond? Hardly. No one knows.

    Small changes, big picture. Nature figures it to 12th decimal and beyond. An arbiter we agree on.

  183. Trick says:

    “UWIR always equalling DWIR.”

    No. This imbalance would blow the atm. right off and it is still here.

    “No DWIR, just KE returning to the surface by way of reconversion of PE in descending air.”

    Then you define Trenberth & NOAA ESRL DWIR as “KE returning to the surface by way of reconversion of PE in descending air”. Ok.

    “Anything can happen within the atmosphere as long as there is balance at the top.”

    Yes.

    “Divergence from the ideal lapse rate inevitably produces an imbalance at the top.”

    No. The text book tells us lapse curve just shifts, to start at different To. No problem for atm. lapse curve still goes as –g/Cp approx.

  184. Stephen Wilde says:

    Then the change to the standard atmosphere would be a result of natural warming due to the reduced cloudiness during the period of active sun. Not a result of human emissions.

    Apparently the albedo changes have been enough to account for all the observed changes but that is for another day.

    We continue to run the experiment and I am reconciled to needing up to ten more years to prove my point empirically or see it rebutted.

  185. Stephen Wilde says:

    “This imbalance would blow the atm. right off and it is still here.”

    Current and recent imbalances are temporary, natural and come and go on multicentennial timescales (MWP to LIA and LIA to date). Larger changes occur at the transition points between glaciations and interglacials but the atmospheric circulation always adapts to restore balance.

    “No. The text book tells us lapse curve just shifts, to start at different To.”

    That text book is radiative only and thus wrong.

    All current text books appear to reflect the solely radiative viewpoint developed over the past 30 years. A big mistake.The earlier settled science had it right.

    In reality the average temperature of the starting point stays much the same and circulatory changes adapt the atmosphere to restore the ideal lapse rate or close enough to it given that the system is never in actual equilibrium.

    Believe me or not as you choose but your maths eventually showed that it is plausible given the parameters I applied and I see from observations that the real world is applying just those parameters.

  186. Trick says:

    Eos article comments:

    Nothing in the paper needs a re-do in the 1st course atmospheric thermo or atm radiation.

    “…high clouds have increased to a larger extent…an increased trapping of infrared radiation by clouds (increased heating).”

    Makes me cringe, would make Joe Postma apoplectic. Wish they had said something like leads to slower cooling of the surface, since a cooler region can’t cause increased heating of warmer region; all this process they observe can do is slow the cooling of the cooler region.

    “..the increase in cloud amount, is not necessarily inconsistent with the observed global temperatures. It seems that under the right circumstances either an increase or a decrease in albedo can lead to higher temperatures.”

    Well, now they are right either way. Pretty safe paper.

  187. Trick says:

    “Then the change to the standard atmosphere would be a result of natural warming due to the reduced cloudiness during the period of active sun. Not a result of human emissions.”

    This would need a re-do of 1st course atm. thermo and atm. radiation. Your evidence? Textbook ref.? Paper ref.?

    “Apparently the albedo changes have been enough to account for all the observed changes but that is for another day”

    Evidence? Textbook ref.? Paper ref.?

    “Current and recent imbalances are temporary…”

    Yes.

    “That text book is radiative only and thus wrong.”

    No text includes conduction, convection, moonshine, earthshine, PV=nRT all the usual suspects.

    “All current text books appear to reflect the solely radiative viewpoint..”

    I have 4, none of these reflect the solely radiative viewpoint.

    “Believe me or not as you choose but your maths eventually showed that it is plausible given the parameters I applied and I see from observations that the real world is applying just those parameters.”

    Yes the math works to the 12th decimal on my calculator, it is plausible, possible, but not probable to keep Tavg. forever constant esp. when our agreed arbiter nature shows Tavg. is NOT constant.

    The real world we live in shows a GHCN measured by thermometer near surface Tavg. increasing on a staggered path for a century+. Albedo on a different staggered path since we could start to maybe measure it close enough. Atm. emissivity DWIR (ok, defined as “KE returning to the surface by way of reconversion of PE in descending air”) on steady upward climb.

    You can’t get around those observations Stephen b/c Tavg. not equal 288K since we started doing the thermometer measurements. The UWIR-DWIR term changes as you write to retain the atm.

  188. Trick says:

    Trick clips:

    “That text book is radiative only and thus wrong.”

    Then writes: “No text includes conduction, convection, moonshine, earthshine, PV=nRT all the usual suspects.”

    Hahahaaa…

    Let me make a small punctuation et. al. correction for improvement in my meaning:

    “That text book is radiative only and thus wrong.”

    No, the texts include conduction, convection, moonshine, earthshine, PV=nRT all the usual suspects.

  189. Konrad says:

    Stephen & Trick,
    You will not have to wait years, just a few days. I am halfway through constructing a new two box experiment. This time I am building two taller foam boxes. In the base of each is a matt black target plate. The vertical inner walls have foil reflectors. The tops will be sealed by double glazed LDPE film. One box will have normal air, the other will be filled wit CO2. External 50w halogen lights will heat the internal target plates. Internal box dimensions are 200 x 200 x 400mm. Shielded thermometer probes will be halfway up the box.

    I would be fascinated to get Trick’s prediction as to which box gets hotter.

  190. Stephen Wilde says:

    Sorry, Trick, but you are just burbling on repetitively whilst ignoring earlier comments and by indulging in apparently wilful misinterpretation.

    The textbooks might refer to non radiative processes but they do not allow for a variable speed of opposite sign providing a second control volume in parallel with the radiative control volume.

    And as far as the Earthshine paper is concerned I do not share its interpretations. I only refer to it for the data about cloudiness variations.

  191. Trick says:

    “I would be fascinated to get Trick’s prediction as to which box gets hotter.”

    You know me by now Konrad; wait for LTE, the one with the highest Teq. from net flux-in – net flux-out heat eqn. in W/m^2 solved for Teq. in K near enough by the thermometers. This will not be easy, will require $thousands in precision flux-o-meters. This experiment will not result in need of a re-do of basic atm. thermo or atm. radiation 1st course texts no matter the outcome.

    What is the certified precision of the 50W halogens? 50.0000? Is one 49 and one 51? What?

  192. Trick says:

    “Sorry, Trick, but you are just burbling on repetitively whilst ignoring earlier comments and by indulging in apparently wilful misinterpretation.”

    Yikes. Where exactly? I do keep harping (burbling huh?) on 1st principle text books, I have to give you that. I will be happy to burble some more if you think I missed an essential comment requiring a re-do of the 1st principle text book stuff. Point ‘em out, I’m still interested.

    The text books DO allow non-radiative processes of a variable speed of opposite sign providing a 2nd control volume in parallel with the radiative control volume. Just need CPA level proper accounting to get heat eqn. books balanced up right. Tough job, but if done accordance with 1st principles, nature follows as the arbiter.

  193. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Yikes. Where exactly?”

    You ignored my comments about the observations in my post at 3.43pm.

    If the text books do allow for such a process what is your problem ?

    You would then be wrong to assert or imply that the surface temperature necessarily needs to rise and to deny that any such rise which departs from the ideal lapse rate could potentially result in losing the atmosphere if it were not corrected by a negative system response of some sort.

    Note that the starting temperature at the surface for the lapse rate and the slope of the lapse rate are set by mass and gravity whereas the height of the atmosphere is set by solar input.

    If radiative characteristics try to raise the starting point or cause any deviation along the lapse rate then it must be corrected by a negative circulatory response if the atmosphere is to be retained long term.

    If you simply raise the starting temperature at the surface by introducing more GHGs and follow through along the full length of the lapse rate to top of atmosphere in the way you proposed the obvious consequence will be more energy going out than coming in from the sun.

    That is not a sustainable scenario long term so the cooling effect of more going out than coming in will duly restore the original starting temperature and slope set by mass, gravity and insolation.

    The opposite if more GHGs have a net cooling effect.

  194. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 22, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    “I would be fascinated to get Trick’s prediction as to which box gets hotter.”

    You know me by now Konrad; wait for LTE, the one with the highest Teq. from net flux-in – net flux-out heat eqn. in W/m^2 solved for Teq. in K near enough by the thermometers. This will not be easy, will require $thousands in precision flux-o-meters. This experiment will not result in need of a re-do of basic atm. thermo or atm. radiation 1st course texts no matter the outcome.
    What is the certified precision of the 50W halogens? 50.0000? Is one 49 and one 51? What?

    ——————————————————————————-
    Trick,
    Wow! That response is a Keeper!

    Yes I do know you by now. Your response was both entirely predictable and laughable. You would have never made a prediction because you know that your linear flux equations cannot solve for energy being transferred by the physical vertical movement of gasses.

    Of course I design the experiment such that components such as the boxes, target plates thermometers and globes can be swapped to check for equipment bias. You seem to have no idea of how to build and run an empirical experiment.

    Thousands of precision flux-o-meters? Oh please! All I need to measure is the average temperature of the gas in each box. Two radiation shielded probes mid way up each box is quiet adequate for this setup.

    As to your “1st course texts”, not a lot of good are they? On a previous thread you could not even predict which of the two boxes in the previous experiment with the water tubes would run hotter. The temperature differential was 25C and you could not see it.

    Totally pwned. Your game requires the semblance of credibility to work. The distractions, frustrating misrepresentations and misinterpretations then look unintentional. To try and regain some credibility why not describe in your own words without the maths why box 2 in the experiment with the water pipes runs 25C hotter?

  195. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    Reading between the lines I think that your remaining objection is to my assertion that a rise in surface temperature beyond that set by mass and insolation would result in a loss of the atmosphere.

    You suggest that, when there are more GHGs, simply adjusting the slope of the lapse rate near trhe surface would be enough to retain the atmosphere.

    The problem with that is as follows:

    i) Adjusting the slope of the lapse rate near the surface (or anywhere) means that too much or too little radiation will be leaving at the top of atmosphere unless there is a corresponding adjustment to the slope of the lapse rate elsewhere. On average, the actual slope must match the slope set by gravity for an atmosphere to be retained.

    ii) If the adjustment in the slope near the surface is offset by a change in the slope elsewhere then the extra radiation from a warmer surface would create another imbalance because that extra radiation would be going out in addition to the increase in outgoing radiation caused by the circulatory adjustment elsewhere in the system. There would be more going out than coming in and the whole system would cool back to the original temperature.

    iii) It follows that you cannot retain an atmosphere if one has both a change in surface temperature AND a change in the slope of the near surface lapse rate unless there is NO adjustment to the lapse rate elsewhere in the system. It really is an all or nothing scenario because any increase in non radiative processes would have to be added to the extra radiation from the warmer surface to give more going out than the GHGs had initially caused to be retained. I don’t see how one could prevent that adjustment elsewhere in the system so there would be double accounting of outgoing radiation if the surface temperature rose as well.

    Proper accounting in accordance with first principles ?

    Note that there is no problem with local or regional rises in surface temperature as llong as global average surface temperature stays the same. The non radiative processes are generally circulation driven with wide variability from region to region and that would continue.

  196. Trick says:

    11:43 pm: “You ignored my comments about the observations in my post at 3.43pm.”

    Ok, thanks Stephen, my editor has retired for the day, long post ahead. Stephen in quotes says:

    “The near surface thermometer fields are affected by inadequately quantified UHI effects and by distribution bias in that they are mostly situated in regions that would see an effect from shifting climate zones. It is likely that the distribution of energy across the surface does change but without a significant change in total system energy content”

    UHI does change the energy distribution locally from when there were trees or plains, agreed. I observe this on my car thermometer driving from country to city & and on weather reports. This has no significant change on total system energy content, agreed. It is also a good test of and experiment in how fast radiative energy absorbed or emitted by a medium will quickly give rise to a commensurate change in the physical temperature of that medium.

    I could have burbled agreement.

    “Satellites are far better and so far show much less variability. The variability they do show is most likely just variability around a mean as the internal system processes lag behind natural solar and oceanic forcing elements for a while.”

    I could have burbled mostly agreement, they measure near surface Tavg. staggers upwards too.

    One issue I thought to point out, but my newly hired editor, deleted it. The satellite instruments are not absolute thermometers; have to be correlated to soundings up/down in the atm. column and calibrated. The satellites also drift in orbit, have to be compensated – a potential for thumbs on the scale if compensation show residuals to calibrations. They are a good 2nd check on atm. T(z) and GHCN but not absolute.

    “There is no evidence to the effect that albedo, TOA height or thermals have failed to compensate.”
    If they were to fail to compensate then that failure would over time lead to a loss of the atmosphere by way of a permanent divergence from the ideal lapse rate.”

    Yes, there IS failure to compensate – this was covered in my postings. Let me repeat, it is important. There IS failure to compensate, Earth global near surface Tavg. has staggered upward since thermometer measurements started a century+ ago. The real albedo, real TOA height and real thermals have failed to compensate in their assigned by you task. Clearly failed though the amount of their failure is statistically debated; I observe no authority tracing to 1st principle text books countering this observation. Find me one, I’d like to read up on it. (Oh, please Stephen not the usual space aliens that ignore and don’t observe 1st principles.)

    There is no worry about permanent divergence from any of the 3 lapse rates, they remain safely the same; T(0) at surface change is all that happens. Atm. will not blow off, only if UWIR=DWIR does that happen, N2 molecules will get to 11,200 m/sec. under that scenario.

    BTW, I observe you want to get it right on 1st principles or we wouldn’t be having this thread. It would be easier if you just obtained & read thru Bohren/Albrecht text (or just looked at the pictures – they hate differentials too) but that is such a good, well written text, I am happy to dive in there for you et. al. any place, any time. There are plenty of stories in there you will enjoy that show where common “beliefs” have physical trouble.

    Especially you will like & learn from ‘Conductivity of a gas: A few myths exploded’ p.343, ‘the skin diver’s fallacy on wet suits’, p.348, ‘Newton’s laws of cooling: A study in error propagation’, p. 350., ‘the freezing of lakes’, p. 355, ‘radiative energy transfer p. 356 (omg, this ought to get Stephen going)’, ‘Radiation and Convection Combined (see! non-radiative & radiative in one story): Dew and Frost formation’ p. 357., ‘Radiation in Porous Media, p.360 (Konrad will like this one)’, ‘Newton’s law of cooling according to Newton’, p. 362, ‘Thermometer as low pass filter’, p. 363.

    The best is saved to last: P. 365 “Engineer Heal Thyself” “We began this chapter with an appeal to meteorologists to learn the minimum about energy transfer that engineers learn. An arrow with two barbs. Engineers ought to learn a little about the atmosphere.” I think I wrote this up somewhere, if can find will repeat.’

    If you want an atm. thermo text that has problems like: “What is the final temperature of two kg. of N2 at room T when its pressure is doubled adiabatically?” this is not the text for you. This text is way happier to answer phoned in questions from Harley-Davidson riders wanting to know about wind chill riding their choppers. The author’s response was duly published in a mag. for tattooed bearded men wearing nose rings – by the authors reckoning, a very useful question answered.

    “You have had two reluctant ‘ding’ moments during the course of our exchanges on this thread and another thread. In both cases you eventually conceded that my proposals could work given the parameters that I was applying. If you think they do not work then it is for you to prove it and so far the failure of global temperature to follow CO2 trends over the past 15 years or so seems to be supporting my view rather than yours.”

    I looked up one ^ding^ moment, I figured the other was in same context and, yes, I evaded that 2nd search work. Where the hell WAS the 2nd one or what was it about? I’ll see what I can do. I responded to the rest of that, will not repeat.

  197. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Yes, there IS failure to compensate – this was covered in my postings. Let me repeat, it is important. There IS failure to compensate, Earth global near surface Tavg. has staggered upward since thermometer measurements started a century+ ago. The real albedo, real TOA height and real thermals have failed to compensate in their assigned by you task. ”

    What you interpret as failure to compensate is simply the system lagging behind the natural changes since the LIA.

    Unfortunately, I find the rest of your post off point and somewhat pretentious and patronising.

  198. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:35am; “…flux equations cannot solve for energy being transferred by the physical vertical movement of gasses.”

    Yes. They can. Grab ahold of Bohren/Albrecht text – they show how in a tall column of gas (thru enthalpy & entropy consideration), and “radiation and convection combined”, “radiation in porous medium.” With pictures & 1st principles, they try to avoid the differentials but cannot entirely. They will be happy to answer tough atm. thermo questions, call ‘em up, though think retirement might mean tough to contact.

    Engineers make these flux eqn. solutions close enough for intakes in SR71 engine inlet design to not melt. No kidding. SR71’s really fly, no melting. They go fast, and high. Even above the troposphere where weird science takes over.

    You boxes will follow nature’s 1st principles, I have no doubt whatsoever. We no longer use instruments to try and figure out and calibrate the R in PV=nRT. We now use PV=nRT to calibrate our instruments.

    “The temperature differential was 25C and you could not see it.”

    Has Konrad instrumented those 2 boxes yet with deluxe flux-o-meters and found his missing heat? I find it should be something on order of 100 or so W/m^2 missing and Trenberth got his missing heat down to 0.9 W/m^2 for the WHOLE EARTH system; you ought to do better than him in two small boxes for goodness sakes.

    I would like to write I did the experiment, making the water inlet pipes exactly the same on two boxes, using $2,000 worth of water T & flow rate instruments installed and say I found I also had a temperature difference. So I rechecked the calibration on the hot water inlet and found a calibration error. Once that was corrected, I readjusted the hot water flow to be the same on both boxes and the temperature equalized. To 0.5K, a difference proving I could not find all missing heat, that I really did the thing.

    Alas, I will not – there is no use to doing the experiment, I know from 1st principles that when the boxes are the same flux-in – flux-out density at LTE, T will be the same. Exactly. The text books will need no redo. SR71’s do fly.

    Thanks again to our host for letting all this run on autopilot in TB towers WP cloud.

  199. Trick says:

    Stephen: “Unfortunately, I find the rest of your post off point and somewhat pretentious and patronising.”

    Which is why I didn’t write it up to begin with, but you asked.

  200. Trick says:

    Stephen 1:13am: “What you interpret as failure to compensate is simply the system lagging behind the natural changes since the LIA.”

    I see. So how long until real albedo, real thermals, and real TOA height do compensate?

  201. Trick says:

    Stephen 1:01 am: A well considered post, thanks. You have a good editor, better than mine.

    There is a difference in what you interpreted and what I wrote.

    Stephen says: “You suggest that, when there are more GHGs, simply adjusting the slope of the lapse rate near the surface would be enough to retain the atmosphere.”

    No that is not my suggestion. The 1st principle stuff shows just the starting To will be different & that the slopes will be the same whether you want to use the approximate –g/Cp lapse slope, the ideal exact lapse slope, or the real environmental lapse slope. The slopes will be the same as they were. Just the starting global Tavg. at approx. 1000mb surface will be different. No gas enthalpy or entropy will be harmed.

    I can show why, you are liable to respond it is off point and you are the lead poster. If you want to learn why, just ask.

  202. Konrad says:

    Trick,
    Still can’t explain the 25C difference between the boxes? It’s very basic physics, just conduction and convection. 😉

    As to this distraction –
    “Engineers make these flux eqn. solutions close enough for intakes in SR71 engine inlet design to not melt. No kidding. SR71’s really fly, no melting. They go fast, and high. Even above the troposphere where weird science takes over.”
    – I will play. I have a pilots licence and a bookshelf full of aviation and space, including “Sled Driver” Firstly, while there may not have been melting, nose skin buckling was observed at speeds higher than mach 3. Secondly the reason the skin was painted black was to improve radiative cooling and keep the fuel cooled skin temperature down. Sort of like how the radiative gasses help our atmosphere keep cool 😉

    BTW, just wired up the 50w halogens and started on the tall insulated boxes. Still not frustrated, distracted or snowed 😉

  203. Trick says:

    Konrad – Cool. And know why SR71 leaked so much kerosene fuel in the hanger? They had to allow for expansion to close up the gaps and seal the tanks, even allow for leakage up to flying speed. So couldn’t use rocket fuel. Imagine the vapors in atm. due to that! Maybe that’s the AGW!

    Just show me a sketchy summary how basic physics of conduction and convection in your exp. prove the text books wrong, I admit to being (bad word, maybe snowed’s better) skeptical on that. Use a control volume around the boxes. You can use eqn.s with me.

  204. Max™‮‮ says:

    “Yea, though I pass through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I am at 75,000 feet and climbing.” ~SR71 pilot

  205. Konrad says:

    Ok, I have just finished construction, image is here –
    http://tinypic.com/r/osz9cw/6
    One box is filled with air the other CO2. 50W halogens are heating an aluminium target plate at the base of each box (190 x 190 x 2mm matt black). The windows are made of LDPE cling wrap double glazed. Internal box volume is 225 x 200 x400mm.

    I have attempted a few runs, however I have to report that at this time I cannot get a clean reading. Most of my previous experiments have given a clear result, however the results I am getting at present are within the measurement error of my dual probe thermometer. The problems I am facing include the current room temperature, which is around 26C. Quite simply the IR radiated from the ceiling is too close to the internal box temperatures. Secondly unlike the experiment with the water tubes, CO2 has limited absorption and emission bands. Even with 100% CO2 in ideal conditions it will be very difficult to get a significant temperature differential.

    What I am finding is that with 50w globes, the boxes heat at the same rate then cool at the same rate when the globes are switched off. The maximum temperature differential I am seeing is 0.1C (flickering) I cannot claim the CO2 box is running cooler as this is clearly within the error range of the thermometer. From 26C the temperature rises in each box to 40C with 50xw globes in 30min.

    At my location I am unlikely to see a drop in ceiling temperature in the next few weeks. However there are a number of possible solutions –
    1- Run the experiment outside at night on a cloudless night (Clouds are massive IR radiators)
    2 – Increase the SW watts entering the boxes (not a good idea as increased box temps lead to increased conductive losses)
    3 – Cut the IR from the ceiling and halogens from entering the box and present a cooler surface above the box windows. (clear trays of 1C water would work well positioned below the halogens)
    4 – Reduce conductive losses through the windows by creating potassium chloride double glazed windows. (I am not made of money.)

    At this time I am looking at option 3. I still have a water pump and insulated reservoir from when I was crash cooling aluminium plates using a water cooled peltier chip to -25C to measure the DWIR from the night sky. (compared to a 1w LED torch, forget it 😉 ) I just need clear water trays wider than the windows on the boxes.

    One thing should be clear from the non result so far, CO2 is useless with regard to warming. My conductive experiments indicate it should cause very slight cooling, however “Climate Science TM” claims it will cause significant warming. At 400mm deep the CO2 box is approaching the total CO2 available in an atmospheric column on earth., yet in the current runs boxes heat and cool at the same rate. One box is almost totally filled with CO2, not just 0.04% and no measurable difference in temp over a 30min run.*

    *This raises a question – how did all those “global warming in a jar” experiments appear to work? Basically they were a con. This is why Al Gore falsified his results as undeniably demonstrated by Anthony Watts. Glass should not be used as it is IR opaque (fail 1). Thermometer probes should not be exposed to incoming and out going radiation (fail 2). Test chambers should be regulated to constant equal pressures, not sealed (fail 3).

    So to summarise – the current results in less than ideal conditions indicate no accurately measurable difference in warming and cooling rates for CO2 compared to standard air with 0.04% CO2. My plan is to explore option 3 to modify the experiment to be less dependant on ambient conditions out side the boxes. More results soon.

  206. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The 1st principle stuff shows just the starting To will be different & that the slopes will be the same whether you want to use the approximate –g/Cp lapse slope, the ideal exact lapse slope, or the real environmental lapse slope. The slopes will be the same as they were. Just the starting global Tavg. at approx. 1000mb surface will be different. ”

    Then first principles say that too much radiation will be leaving at top of atmosphere because the starting point is greaer than that permitted by the available mass and for so long as the discrepancy lasts there will be a permanent imbalance and a constant cooling until the atmosphere freezes to the surface.

    I suggest that we just agree to differ and let other commenters have more of a chance.

  207. Trick says:

    Stephen – No. If they radiate TOA differently, then you have created or destroyed energy. Can’t happen. Your 1st principles aren’t balanced numerically integrating up each lapse curve layer by layer with two different To between same pressure hts., same mass, you will find the same exact integral of potential temperature p2 to p1 over dp. The radiation in/out TOA will be the same. 239-239=0. You have to do the work or find someone that has done it properly.

  208. Trick says:

    Max – So true. If I look up at a distant jetliner cruising by, and Konrad were piloting the SR71 in cruise, he’d see the same distant jetliner looking down. Of course, ignoring the adiabatic processes between them would be a big mistake to keep on point.

  209. Stephen Wilde says:

    “If they radiate TOA differently, then you have created or destroyed energy”

    If what radiates differently to what ?

    No energy created or destroyed just a change in the rate of flow which is not counterbalanced within the circulation if you raise the surface temperature above that permitted by the amount of mass available whilst keeping the slopes as before.

  210. Stephen Wilde says:

    You do realise that the slope set by gravity represents the rate of cooling with height and so the rate of flow through the system ?

    Then mass sets the surface temperature for a given level of insolation.

    One can destabilise the system either by changing surface temperature without changing the slope or by changing the slope without changing the surface temperature.

    You clearly proposed the former.

    In fact, GHGs do change the slope (most clearly seen in the stratosphere where the slope actually reverses due to the presence of ozone) but cannot change the temperature if stability is to be maintained because mass fixes that. They are potentially destabilising. What the system then does is adjust the slope elsewhere in the atmosphere by altering the circulation thereby restoring stability.

    If GHGs could change the surface temperature without changing the slope (your suggestion) then that is also potentially destabilising so the circulation changes to alter the slope and reduce the surface temperature back to that set by mass.

    If the starting temperature at the surface is set by mass then radiative effects on surface temperature must be cancelled out elsewhere otherwise the atmosphere cannot be retained.

    Your position is apparently that mass interacting with solar energy is NOT the determinant of surface temperature.

    Can you prove that ?

  211. Trick says:

    Stephen 4:44pm: “Your position is apparently that mass interacting with solar energy is NOT the determinant of surface temperature. Can you prove that ?”

    Yes & I already have, Stephen’s intuition cannot see the proof so far and draws incorrect conclusions. But I am interested b/c I learn more about the atm. LTE details & why that occurs in nature as it does from the experts that have already done the solid proof work.

    If I respond to each of Stephen’s points, then I am pretentious and patronizing.

    If I don’t respond to each of Stephen’s points, then I am in “Evasion”.

    Go beyond me Stephen. Look at, learn from the expert’s proof; I learn a lot about 1st principles from them. Tallbloke has posted such a paper, I found it by typing in “Verkley” in the TB search box:

    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/verkely2004.pdf

    All you need is Fig. 2 and Table 1. I know the math will be a problem, but they did it for Stephen and me.

    See the curve with the black dots in Fig. 2? That is the 1976 standard atmosphere as updated in Holton 1992 and follows the environmental lapse rate, Trenberth balanced 239-239=0 in/out TOA.
    See the curve to the right of this? That is the exact same Earth atmosphere as Trenberth shows balanced 239-239=0. But it follows the exact ideal lapse rate their eqn. 18.

    Both curves same insolation, same mass, same TOA height, same KE+PE=constant (this is L in Table 1 = 2.3150 10^9 J/m^2 for both atm.s, the advanced meteorologists term is constant integrated potential temperature).

    So Stephen’s intuition is that To (at Po=1000 hPa near surface i.e. global Tavg.) must then be the same right? No, bzzzzt wrong, To is NOT the same. As I keep writing. To is shown 286.9K in the standard atm. environmental lapse and 302.04K in the ideal exact lapse version. No atm. blow-off.
    Are 1st principles mis-applied? No. Are the experts wrong? Not according to 1st principles.

    Is Stephen’s intuition clipped above suspect? Yes. Stephen writes the atm. must blow-off with a misconceived different lapse integration for KE+PE=constant due to a To difference, this is proved incorrect intuition by the experts actually doing the numerical integration (10,000 slices).

    I had the same suspicion when someone else in the last year wrote what Stephen does, and someone else posted the paper in response. I read the paper, saw that it was based on Bohren&Albrecht text and I went and got B&A text, read from cover to cover as was so good, on topic & interesting. I learned a lot, some has stuck.

    Again “ Can you prove that ?”

    Bohren&Albrecht already have. The text has the 1st principle proof (according to 1st law gas enthalpy conserved and no harm to 2nd law entropy with PV=nRT law) that Stephen seeks. I am just another grasshopper having read the experts. I have tried showing the proof in part (not by re-blogging a 400 page text) repeatedly to Stephen et. al., in the process solidifying my understanding of atm. physics 1st principles, so has been worth it for me, even with my typo.s.

  212. Gail Combs says:

    Steve, I have a question for you. I know you just posted on this over at WUWT.

    I noticed when I tried to get a straight answer from Willis Eschenbach in the The Forcing Conundrum thread he never addressed my second question.

    The essential question was:

    ….clouds are composed of tiny water droplets or ice crystals that are suspended in the air. Those clouds would have a temperature T, and would radiate as a gray body. This radiation would be a percentage of the theoretical black body radiation which is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature as expressed with Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Would this not be confounding the whole idea of DLR from greenhouse gases. Heck would not the entire atmosphere have DLR because it is a gray body radiator and therefore the DLR would again have nothing to do with the Greenhouse gas theory except as a confounding contributor?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/12/the-forcing-conundrum/#comment-1178357

    Willis answered:

    Well, no. They are different phenomena. You can see it in records of downwelling longwave radiation (DLR). There is a background DLR level, due to water vapor and CO2 and other GHGs. But when a cloud comes over, the DLR (generally) increases, because the clouds such excellent absorber-emitters of longwave radiation.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/12/the-forcing-conundrum/#comment-1178644

    If I am following Willis correctly he is saying the DLR and the whole phenomena he is looking at is due to long wave radiation emitted from earth and captured and re-emitted by GHGs and you can see the effect of clouds in the data.

    Maybe I am missing something but I vaguely recall that black body radiation has a continuous frequency spectrum. Is this DLR radiation not in the spectrum radiated by the atmosphere? The information I dug up and showed in comment 1 and comment 2 show that gases do indeed act as gray body emitters and that the emissivity is very different for water vs the atmosphere. This seems to me to be sufficient to explain the differences in DLR that Willis is talking about without invoking all the nonsense about bouncing photons off a trace gas.

    GHGs as a contributing factor I will give you but responsible for ALL the energy measured??? I am having a really tough time swallowing that. so if you please can you clear up the matter for me since Willis is ignoring the question? Thanks

  213. Stephen Wilde says:

    Gail.

    The entire mass of the atmosphere subjected to gravity is involved in setting the maximum surface temperature that can be achieved at a given level of insolation.

    That in itself is enough to relegate the effect of CO2 to insignificance.

    Willis seems to agree with the (incorrect) theory of radiative gases being in control and when directed to the true real world effects arising from mass, gravity and insolation he bangs on about ‘pressure heads’.

    So, yes, I agree with you.

    Trick,

    You persistently miss the point so there is no point in my responding further to your defective opinions.

    I frankly cannot care about anyone who really thinks that out in the real world mass under pressure from gravity and subjected to insolation is not the complete determinant of the surface temperature that can be obtained from that insolation.

    That was the established science before the radiative ignoramuses got a hold on the text books and the education system and it remains true.

    It explains why the AGW theory has no predictive value and never will have.

  214. wayne says:

    Gail “Maybe I am missing something but I vaguely recall that black body radiation has a continuous frequency spectrum. Is this DLR radiation not in the spectrum radiated by the atmosphere? ”

    That’s right… well partially… the clouds radiate both on their bottoms and tops in a gray body manner cancelling some that is coming from the surface. HOWEVER, that is only primarily in the window frequencies, the other frequencies, in the h2o and co2 lines is absorbed not too far below the cloud base. That is why you have two T’s in a proper SB calculation and emissivity lowering your expectation down from theoretical maximum BUT, again, it is only in certain bands and each has to at least break the window frequencies from all others or you are going to be wrong (but a little right).

    Everyone (including Willis) seems to only be half correct at any moment. Frustrating. Ignoring so many processes that are simultaneously occuring and they do affect each other. If at a T difference if co2 does not handle that excess energy then the Maxwell distribution and equipartition law will, by physics, find another line or frequency to equalize the energy anyway. When anyone speaks ONLY of co2, throw up a red flag!

  215. Stephen Wilde says:

    Here is the problem with the Verkely paper that Trick seeks to rely on:

    “This profile has the merit of reproducing very accurately the tropospheric part of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976.”

    The point being that water vapour in the troposphere does alter the lapse rate slope but only in the troposphere.

    For the atmosphere to be retained it is necessary for the distortion of the slope in the troposphere to be countered by an equal and opposite distortion of the slope elsewhere and that is achieved by a circulatory change for the entire global atmosphere.

    That global circulatory change also compensates for the reversed slope of the lapse rate in the stratosphere caused by the presence of ozone.

    The result of those other compensating changes is that despite the water vapour in the troposphere distorting the lapse rate it has no effect on the surface temperature.

    The Verkeley paper and others like it and the text books are equally flawed because they have never correctly integrated the mechanical processes involving mass, gravity and insolation into the radiative calculations for the entire global atmosphere.

    At one point Trick said they have done so but I respectfully disagree.

    The net radiative outcome at the top of atmosphere is a consequence of the non radiative processes within the atmosphere constantly interacting and adjusting between themselves to maintain balance.

    Change the radiative balance within an atmosphere and the non radiative processes interact between themselves slightly differently in order to achieve the same net radiative outcome as before.

    If the global temperature trend were to come back into line with the projections based on the radiative theory then I would need to reconsider but I won’t hiold my breath since the discrepancy is building up faster as time passes.

  216. Gail Combs says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 17, 2012 at 8:58 am

    …..Agreed that an atmosphere with no radiative capability would get very hot and that water vapour and other GHGs on Earth mitigate that effect considerably such that the circulation needs to work far less hard in order to maintain equilibrium.

    As to whether it would necessarily get so hot as to escape to space I’m not so sure. That would depend on how effective the adiabatic process alone could be in extremis and I’m not sure on that.I think that on balance the atmosphere would be retained but the adiabatic circulation would need to be fast enough with very strong winds….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Steve I think I have a real world example for you on how fast the atmosphere without H2O would respond.

    Air and ground temperature recorded in the N. African desert during a solar eclipse.

    The path of the eclipse: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/TSE2006/TSE2006.html

  217. wayne says:

    Trick, I think Stephen means you seem to never show how this shift of the temperature to the right (warmer) is explained. I can’t see it either. Are you speaking of doubling co2 to perform the rightward shift with the lapse remaining constant? Insolation and mass constant also. Are you holding volume constant? Are you speaking of an h2o-less atmosphere? Does that allow for equipartition with h2o through the Maxwell distribution? I too would like you to show WHERE in Verkley or B&A this is explicitly calculated and how it is calculated (most don’t have the B&A book at hand).

  218. Truthseeker says:

    Stephen,

    Doug Cotton has responded in more detail to your work at Roy Spencer’s blog. For some reason he cannot post on this blog (not my place to judge).

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/12/our-chaotic-climate-system/#comment-67361

    [Reply] There are several very specific reasons why Doug Cotton is no longer able to post comments on this blog. TB

  219. Max™‮‮ says:

    Just to note, as I see this mistake made a lot, the SB law gives a theoretical minimum temperature for a given level of radiation, lowering emissivity raises the temperature.

    A surface emits 240 W/m^2 at 255 K with unity emissivity.

    Lowering the emissivity raises that temperature, which is why we had the whole back and forth elsewhere about the effective emissivity being lowered to 0.6 as that is the value needed for a 288 K surface to emit 240 W/m^2.

  220. Trick says:

    wayne 11:03 pm – Good questions.

    “I think Stephen means you seem to never show how this shift of the temperature to the right (warmer) is explained.”

    Some 1st principles Stephen accepts other stuff he just makes up as far as I can tell, he seems to be stuck in the ‘60s. I am trying to help advance him to the new stuff since then but all I do is sharpen my own understanding, his assuming constant To has no predictive power.

    Verkley explains the rightward shift of the ideal exact lapse rate, look in Table 1. Observed (black dots) is the standard profile having the same KE+PE=constant (L) as the ideal atm. (L). Note the entropy S is different, higher for ideal than observed. This says the rightward shift is due to maximizing the entropy in the ideal case. The real atm. meter^2 never gets to max. entropy b/c it has energy flowing thru it and other stuff than ideal going on, this amount is the difference.

    So whenever you see someone (like me) talk about the exact ideal lapse rate eqn. 18, realize they mean the one with max. entropy. Everyone will forget this including me as soon as leave this post, ha.

    “Are you speaking of doubling co2 to perform the rightward shift with the lapse remaining constant?”

    All these atm.s in Verkley are based on the 1976 CO2 level as updated in Holton 1992. This paper is not about CO2 differences, only the T profiles. I thought this paper might cause Stephen to learn there is more to To than mass, insolation, and TOA height, but it didn’t. I predict Stephen will keep on being inaccurate to 1st principles and drawing unfounded conclusions with no predictive power.

    “Insolation and mass constant also. Are you holding volume constant?”

    Yes Verkley holds the volume constant using p=density*R*T , i.e. closed system (mass=constant between same pressure levels) but it is hard to see exactly, the T=0 of the Fig. 2 curves extended to the left, will be at P=0 in the limit ht., same volume.

    Note also as I have said so often, no weird high altitude stratosphere physics in this paper, just 1st course stuff. See where the black dots diverge – mass above p=264.36 hPa is not considered nor does it need to be to learn what we need here which is that there is more to consider in To than Stephen considers.

    “Are you speaking of an h2o-less atmosphere?”

    No, the standard 1976 atmosphere as updated by Holton 1992.

    “Does that allow for equipartition with h2o through the Maxwell distribution?”

    Dunno right off why this is important other than for escape velocity, always something to learn. If standard atm. does, then Verkley does.

    “…WHERE in Verkley or B&A this is explicitly calculated and how it is calculated…”

    B&A spends 4 pages on Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution of Molecular Speeds 60-64 in my edition, standard stuff though B&A is more informative if you ask me.

    Stephen 10:30 pm: “For the atmosphere to be retained it is necessary for the distortion of the slope in the troposphere to be countered by an equal and opposite distortion of the slope elsewhere and that is achieved by a circulatory change for the entire global atmosphere…. text books are equally flawed…”

    I used this M-B probability distribution to show Stephen why the atm. doesn’t blow off to space as it does not in Verkley or the texts (convection, circulation considered properly therein) where they explain just why atm is retained even as To changes; Stephen’s obviously ignored the theory as this 10:30pm clip shows, he still thinks atm. blows off when To differs from some constant, a discrepancy in his mind only, not in nature.

    Somehow Stephen gets N2 molecular speed to 11,200 m/sec but that doesn’t happen in nature. Because nature shows us there is more to To than mass, insolation and TOA ht. I am going with text book 1st principles, not Stephen’s imagination.

    For instance, B&A calculates M-B Distrib. shows most probable speed for N2 at 0C is 401 m/s – not even close to blowing off the atm. at 11,200 m/s. However B&A does same calculation for H2 and finds that it could leak out to space at a substantial rate explaining if the atm. eons ago had contained appreciable H2, by now it would have escaped to space. Though B&A points out photo dissociation of water vapor at high altitudes produces some H2 even today p. 66.

    P. 118 B&A tells us “…we may apply the equipartition theorem with reasonable confidence to gases at normal terrestrial temperatures…”

    ******

    Stephen – One more try. See the plus area above the Fig. 2 standard curve to the ideal curve above about 255K (rightward of crossover)? Below about 255K see the reduced area (leftward of crossover)? This is how KE+PE remain constant for the two curves (lapses). For higher To, there is more radiation from denser atm. below 255K and less radiation from less dense atm. above. Where have you heard this before? Why the EEL of course.

    Now I wish Stephen (somebody) would ask, what happens to the standard environmental lapse curve shown (black dots) when enough CO2 – a 15micon band infrared active gas – is added to the standard atm.? Does it move To up but the (+) area and (-) area – will they then come in to play to keep total energy constant?

    YES! Same entropy too. 239-239=0 still holds same KE+PE=const. Pretty neat, I do wish Stephen could see that, he would be that much more fun.

  221. Gail Combs says:

    wayne says:
    December 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    That’s right… well partially… the clouds radiate both on their bottoms and tops in a gray body manner cancelling some that is coming from the surface. HOWEVER, that is only primarily in the window frequencies, the other frequencies, in the h2o and co2 lines is absorbed not too far below the cloud base. That is why you have two T’s in a proper SB calculation and emissivity lowering your expectation down from theoretical maximum BUT, again, it is only in certain bands and each has to at least break the window frequencies from all others or you are going to be wrong (but a little right)….

    I went digging again after I remembered that black bodies radiate continuously. Yes there is a continuous spectrum or a thermal spectrum. Any solid, liquid and dense (thick) gas at a temperature above absolute zero will produce a thermal spectrum. A thermal spectrum is the simplest type of spectrum because its shape depends on only the temperature. (A rather interesting website worth looking at BTW) This is different than what you are talking about which is a discrete spectrum. A discrete spectrum is the spectrum from a gas. At what pressure a gas goes from ‘black body continuous’ to discrete then becomes a different question.

    The fly in the ointment of course is the fact that the atmosphere is not 100% gas. You have aerosols, sand, dust and of course water droplets and ice crystals. (A cloud would be near blackbody with an emissivity of 0.98)

    On top of that the DLR has to come from somewhere.

    1. It is blackbody radiation of some nature. ALL atoms/molecules will give off energy if they are not at 0K.

    2. It is blackbody radiation from the earth that is absorbed by GHGs and re-emited earthwards. If this is true then the DLR will be a discrete spectrum matching that of the GHGs but how do you tell if that discrete spectrum is because the gas is at temperature T and emitting energy or if it is energy that was absorbed from the earth’s black body radiation and re-emitted?

    Doing a bit more digging I found that someone has indeed answered my question and as I thought GHGs are mainly emitting due to their temperature and not due to absorption and re-emission of earth energy although I do not think that was the message he was trying to get across.

    …Why does the atmosphere radiate? Because it is heated up via convection from the surface, solar radiation and surface radiation. The atmosphere radiates according to its temperature, in accordance with Planck’s law and at wavelengths where gas molecules are able to radiate.

    There isn’t any serious theory that the atmosphere doesn’t emit radiation. If the atmosphere is above absolute zero and contains gases that can absorb and emit longwave radiation (like water vapor and CO2) then it must radiate.
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/

    So I was correct any DLR due to the “GHG effect” would be confounded by the amount of energy radiated due to the temperature of the gas and also because energy is transfered to the gas via convection from the surface not to mention the fact the atmosphere is not normally just sitting still. Extracting the actual amount that was due to a “GHG effect” is not a simple calculation by any means. No wonder the Climastrologists can completely confuse people!

    Do not forget that nifty little graph from the solar eclipse in the Libyan desert.

    I would like to see a similar graph at 80-90% humidity on a clear day.

  222. wayne says:

    “Just to note, as I see this mistake made a lot, the SB law gives a theoretical minimum temperature for a given level of radiation, lowering emissivity raises the temperature.”
    I’ll add a bit more to Max’s comment; he’s right on the emissivity side.
    But also if anyone else is not aware by the Stefan-Boltzmann’s relationship (SB) the temperatures INTERNALLY between the two boundary temperatures does not matter one bit.
    Take our atmosphere, 288K at the surface, 216K at the top. That implies with an emissivity of 0.67 that 178.67 wm-2 is going to transfer between the two. This same principle holds no matter which emissivity is used. If use this function for at a temperature with an emissivity to the flux value.
    te2f(288,0.67) – te2f(216,0.67) = 178.67

    But let’s mess it up in between the two boundaries, take this sequence:

    At surface
    te2f(288,0.67) – te2f(280,0.67) = 27.5
    At 1000 m
    te2f(280,0.67) – te2f(281,0.67) = -3.35
    At 5000 m
    te2f(281,0.67) – te2f(273,0.67) = 25.84
    At TOA m
    te2f(273,0.67) – te2f(216,0.67) = 128.33

    and they all sum to… guess what… 178.67 wm-2. It is a linear combination. So internal temperature profiles do not matter one iota if a correct two temperatures and the effective emissivity can be determined.

    But does this linearity also hold if part or all is by conduction, or the radiation is of such short distance between mean absorptions that radiation is just basically acting as super-conduction. Seems it does, and that also seems to be the primary transport upward in the internal troposphere and it is thermodynamics and not radiation.

    Radiation has four unique actions in a thick troposphere:
    [1] It moves ‘n’ watts per square meter from the surface directly to space. (the window radiation)
    [2] The remaining surface radiation’s energy is moved into the troposphere very at a very low altitude. On Earth it seems to be below 500 meters.
    [3] Internally it greatly magnifies the speed of physical/radiative conduction which always strives to equalize any temperature differences.
    [4] At and above the TOA it is now able to reach space in a single jump and the energy is ejected. (albeit it is only about ½ efficient, ½ up, ½ down)

  223. wayne says:

    Gail, this is one of the times I have to differ, maybe you misunderstood me. First I was not speaking of something other than you. No discrete spectrum.

    “I went digging again after I remembered that black bodies radiate continuously. Yes there is a continuous spectrum or a thermal spectrum. Any solid, liquid and dense (thick) gas at a temperature above absolute zero will produce a thermal spectrum. A thermal spectrum is the simplest type of spectrum because its shape depends on only the temperature. (A rather interesting website worth looking at BTW) This is different than what you are talking about which is a discrete spectrum. A discrete spectrum is the spectrum from a gas. At what pressure a gas goes from ‘black body continuous’ to discrete then becomes a different question”

    You said the clouds emitted in a black body, really a gray body, manner. True. Since there are no such thing in nature as a black body maybe stop speaking of it as such. Gray bodies are continuous frequency Planck emissions also from all liquid or solid matter as you said; it is just a ideal black body Planck curve with some proper emissivity applied lowering it to the correct irradiance.

    What I spoke of is that in this gray-body continuous spectrum from a cloud must be differentiated in what happens to each and every spectral line, at least by classes of spectral lines. If a line does not match the lines of a GHG present then this is window radiation and it is free to pass directly downward from the cloud to the surface unimpeded no matter of the altitude. The radiation from the cloud that does match the GHGs lines present is absorbed in a matter of meters below the cloud base and thermodynamics handles that energy transfer from that point forward, cloud cooled, local air below warmed. That is also why clouds warming effect on or near the surface is very subtle, there is only about a 66/248 ratio, set by the temperature, in the window frequencies so the full thrust of radiation from the clouds is never felt or applied at the surface.

    Gases only radiate according to the local temperature because of the huge number of collisions (another way to say it is in LTE) that are constantly thermalizing and re-exciting the GHG molecules over and over again, they usually don’t have the time to emit. Contrary to what a lot of people currently think, it is emission from gases in that environment (inside the troposphere) that is the real rarity. However, due to the large numbers spoken of here, even that “rarity” is rather sizeable if you take the time to compute it.

    Now “Any solid, liquid and dense (thick) gas at a temperature above absolute zero will produce a thermal spectrum. A thermal spectrum is the simplest type of spectrum because its shape depends on only the temperature.”, I tend to agree with his statement on thick gases, it also having a gray body continuous spectrum though the irradiance of such radiation from gases is rather weak and this point has not been brought into the three current threads yet (until you rose it that is) 😉

    It’s finally beginning to match “pre climate ‘science’” physics and thermodynamics and the numbers tossed about are all beginning to fall into line.

    Stick around here every now and then Gail, this last month has been quite unique here, there have been more inlays into what our atmosphere actual looks like, acts like, and performs than the last years at wuwt. I love wuwt, don’t get me wrong, but maybe it’s just the much slower pace so a 24 hr writing of a pertinent integration can occur and still come back and be not far behind the flow of the thread, but, it’s a lot of reading and needing to know when to discard some comments… but that’s the same in any blog.

    A load of info is especially held within these four:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/tim-folkerts-simple-argument-supporting-a-radiative-greenhouse-effect
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/
    and
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/emissivity-puzzle-energy-exchange-in-non-vacuums/

    Look into the comments on each.

  224. Stephen Wilde says:

    I’ll just summarise how I see the current state of my discussion with Trick. I doubt that he will agree.

    i) I suggested in my top post that there is no necessity for a surface temperature change in response to more GHGs if the atmospheric circulation changes suitably instead.

    ii) Trick insisted that a surface temperature change was a necessary outcome of adding more GHGs.

    iii) Eventually, on two separate occasions, he ran his numbers in the way I suggested and found that indeed circulation changes could remove the need for a surface temperature change.

    iv) Trick himself pointed out that a change in albedo would be sufficient to achieve that result. I would go a little further and suggest that a change in circulation speed (windiness) would do it too.

    v) Trick then expressed doubts about the observations in the real world confirming that a suitable circulatory response had actually happened over the past 100 years. I pointed out that we are considering an adjustment process on the scale of 1000 years from MWP to LIA to date.

    vi) Trick then defaulted back to the initial starting point as if all that progress had never been made.

  225. Stephen Wilde says:

    Truthseeker.

    Thanks for the tip off. I haven’t been to Roy’s blog for a few days.

    Here is my response to Doug which also has some relevance here:

    Doug said:

    “For example, his (Stephen’s) statement “the adiabatic and diabatic processes must always match each other” makes no sense physically. There is no energy added in an adiabatic process, but there is energy added or removed in a diabatic process, so how can zero match an (absolute) value > 0 ???”

    My reply:

    That works because in effect solar input gets a free pass through the system leaving energy in balance at top of atmosphere.

    Thus the diabatic loop does indeed have a zero value at top of atmosphere and the adiabatic loop has zero value within the atmosphere.

    It is only when one or other of the two loops nets out to other than zero that compensating circulatory adjustments occur. In practice that is all the time because the large number of internal system variables is constantly trying to destabilise the system but the negative system response always keeps the system within narrow parameters.

    and:

    “I don’t agree that significant regions of air rise significant distances and then fall back to the surface. There would have to be some reason for the change of direction. This is not like throwing a ball into the air so that it subsequently falls ”

    My reply:

    If one ignores temporary inversions the fact is that at any one moment half the atmosphere is rising within low pressure regions (less than 1000mb) and half is descending in high pressure regions (more than 1000mb.

    The initial kick is supplied by insolation at the surface whereupon energy diffuses unevenly to the air above resulting in convection and that then develops into a full global diabatic loop or loops with different loops at different levels (such as the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere and the water cycle in the troposphere).

    Conceptually it is helpful to regard the entire global atmosphere as containing a single diabatic loop.

    I think my concept of two separate loops each being independently variable and of oppositely signed response to any forcing element is potentially a major step forward in explaining how the system maintains balance so as to leave mass, gravity and insolation as the only determinants of surface temperature.

  226. Max™‮‮ says:

    Good explanation with the different atmospheric layers, Wayne.

  227. Trick says:

    Stephen 4:49pm: “I doubt that (Trick) will agree.”

    I only disagree with Stephen when he gets the fundamental science wrong and draws incorrect conclusions, which appears to be often given my posting rate. When I agree with Stephen statements (in quotes below), he refers to me as patronizing.

    “i) I suggested in my top post that there is no necessity for a surface temperature change in response to more GHGs if the atmospheric circulation changes suitably instead.”

    Trick pointed out text book science says the additional energy in the atm. by additional infrared active gas slowing near surface cooling cannot be simply destroyed by circulation. Stephen disagrees, offers suggestions that destroy energy or create energy out of nothing and counters the text books/papers that point out energy can neither be created nor destroyed must then be flawed.

    “ii) Trick insisted that a surface temperature change was a necessary outcome of adding more GHGs.”

    No, never. Stephen oft uses this traditional tactic of rewriting history; it is not a proper strategy, won’t work long term, the evidence is available.

    “iii) Eventually, on two separate occasions, he ran his numbers in the way I suggested and found that indeed circulation changes could remove the need for a surface temperature change.”

    No. History rewrite tactic used again here by Stephen. 1st principle science starts with energy is neither created nor destroyed properly using control volumes. Stephen writes that energy in atm. control volume can be & is destroyed by atm. circulation therefore draws the incorrect conclusion additional infrared active gas in an atm. has no effect whatsoever on near surface global Tavg. measured by GHCN.

    Stephen should have learned (but has not) energy cannot be created nor destroyed, there is more to To than insolation, mass and TOA height as the textbooks/papers correctly point out using laws of fundamental science.

    “iv) Trick himself pointed out that a change in albedo would be sufficient to achieve that result. I would go a little further and suggest that a change in circulation speed (windiness) would do it too.”

    Yes, actually. However Stephen does go a little too much further and suggests incorrectly that energy is destroyed in the atm. control volume. Trick volunteers to point out a change in albedo could achieve no To change, a thought initially over Stephen’s head in this thread, though this exact albedo change is improbable and has not been demonstrated to date since LIA. Stephen draws incorrect conclusions from his incorrect suggestions.

    “v) Trick then expressed doubts about the observations in the real world confirming that a suitable circulatory response had actually happened over the past 100 years. I pointed out that we are considering an adjustment process on the scale of 1000 years from MWP to LIA to date.”

    Trick points out energy cannot be destroyed. Stephen disagrees, suggests energy CAN be destroyed in the atm. control volume. Stephen points out the real atm. adjustment process can have no effect on To. The real atm. observations show an effect on To. Stephen ignores the real observations.

    “vi) Trick then defaulted back to the initial starting point as if all that progress had never been made.”

    I realize much of what I write is over Stephen’s head. As such, Stephen has made little or no progress; he backslides & is stuck in the ‘60’s. Energy really is conserved even in the 60’s.
    Stephen is smart, he will eventually come around to the text book fundamentals if he ever wants to & applies himself to study scientific progress since 60’s. B&A © 1998, Petty © 2006, Verkley et. al. © 2004.

    Stephen hasn’t noticed but Trick actually progressed over time in this discussion with a deeper understanding of the science fundamentals and tying various ends together. It’s been good learning, fun & entertaining working tirelessly to bring Stephen up to date with science progress.

    Simple really. Typo.s and all.

    Stephen 4:55 pm: “I think my concept of two separate loops each being independently variable and of oppositely signed response to any forcing element is potentially a major step forward in explaining how the system maintains balance so as to leave mass, gravity and insolation as the only determinants of surface temperature.”

    See? I now know Stephen’s concept incorrectly destroys energy in atm. control volume. Plain and simple really. Stephen’s concept is a step backward in science. Once Stephen accepts conservation of energy within a control volume as a fundamental, his concept will & must change.

    My writing this continues to be over Stephen’s head; just check w/the expert textbooks that buiid on fundamentals for a solid science foundation Stephen.

  228. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick says about 7 times that my proposals imply destruction of energy.

    His whole post depends on that assertion.

    I have neither said that nor implied it.

    All I have said is that the rate at which energy moves through the adiabatic loop can change to offset any change in the rate at which energy moves through the diabatic loop.

    Merry Christmas.

  229. Trick says:

    “All I have said is that the rate at which energy moves through the adiabatic loop can change to offset any change in the rate at which energy moves through the diabatic loop.”

    It can only if To increases/decreases (really global near surface Tavg. from GHCN increases/decreases).

    Stephen’s imagination simply ignores observations of To not constant since LIA or imagines destroying the energy. When the atm. physics goes over Stephen’s head, this is way easier to imagine away. Fortunately, there are textbooks from experts with correct physics.

  230. Max™‮‮ says:

    Trick, if a surface is able to distribute energy into the volume filled by a gas through radiative transfer, wouldn’t that reduce the energy content in the surface itself?

    A given level of emissions imply a (theoretical) minimum temperature, though of course emissions do not determine temperature. If you have less energy leaving through emission of radiation, that would correspond to a lower (theoretical) minimum temperature, wouldn’t it?

    Or, going back to a point I had earlier, if a surface can emit up to a given level of radiation at some temperature–say 396 W/m^2 for a 288 K surface–then that would be a maximum output for a minimum temperature, yes?

    If there are no other processes removing energy from the surface, and it does not emit 396 W/m^2, the temperature must be lower.

    If the temperature is higher and it does emit 396 W/m^2, the emissivity must be lower.

    If the emissivity and temperature both fit the 396 W/m^2 value, but there are other processes removing energy from the surface, wouldn’t that reduce the 396 W/m^2 value accordingly?

    You’ve got x W/m^2 leaving through conduction, y W/m^2 leaving through evaporation, z W/m^2 “extra” from cool air being brought back into contact with the surface as a result of convection, right?

    If tE is theoretical emissions, wouldn’t actual emissions be tE-(x+y+z)=aE?

  231. Trick says:

    Max – “..then that would be a maximum output for a minimum temperature, yes?”

    I’d have to go back to the S-B text book eqn.s with the little lambdas, not a very big interest. I see this emissivity stuff has its own thread and have skimmed thru but reluctant to read up on it and contribute. The stuff with those little lambdas always presents a certain extra challenge. Maybe later.

    “You’ve got x W/m^2 leaving through conduction, y W/m^2 leaving through evaporation, z W/m^2 “extra” from cool air being brought back into contact with the surface as a result of convection, right? If tE is theoretical emissions, wouldn’t actual emissions be tE-(x+y+z)=aE?”

    Like in the ’09 Trenberth global energy flow paper p. 314, right? Conduction being the 17 “thermals” rising energy absorbed into atm. and cool air energy 17 coming back round trip (Stephen’s adiabatic loop) in the 333 flow. Again, wish Trenberth had shown several arrows converging in the 333 like the 3 arrows converging for the outgoing 239.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf

  232. Stephen Wilde says:

    “It can only if To increases/decreases ”

    Why so?

    The speed of the adiabatic loop can change as a result of an increase or decrease of available energy anywhere within the vertical column.

    Instead of a change in To one can have an expansion or contraction in volume with a change in the slope of the lapse rate.

    Look at the stratosphere where incoming solar warms ozone to reverse the lapse rate.

    One doesn’t then extrapolate that reversed lapse rate down to the surface so as to determine surface temperature.

    Similarly we can see that water vapour in the troposphere alters the slope of the lapse rate from surface to tropopause away from the ideal lapse rate.

    That change in slope avoids the need for a change in surface temperature because it reflects the change in the rate of energy flow that the water vapour has induced due to its relative buoyancy compared to that of drier air.

    This is not new science. It was standard science before the radiative only ideas took over.

  233. Max™‮‮ says:

    Like in the ’09 Trenberth global energy flow paper p. 314, right? Conduction being the 17 “thermals” rising energy absorbed into atm. and cool air energy 17 coming back round trip (Stephen’s adiabatic loop) in the 333 flow. Again, wish Trenberth had shown several arrows converging in the 333 like the 3 arrows converging for the outgoing 239. ” ~Trick

    Well, my figures for the day side were 391 J to start, -35 J in conduction, -108 J in evaporation, -66 J direct to space, leaving 182 J to be absorbed as radiation, for around around 150 J or so circulating in the lower atmosphere and the rest making it to space.

    I don’t know what the 333 number is supposed to be… wouldn’t that require taking the 180 J or so from the energy emitted to space by the atmosphere and counting it again?

    If you have 330~ available in the atmosphere, doesn’t that mean emissions to space are capped at 60 or so?

    How would you get 240~ out if you start with 390~, take 30 for conduction, 100 for evapotranspiration, and 60 for the window, but don’t let the other 180 leave to space?

    I suppose it could be from just not counting conduction/evaporation/window losses from the available radiation, either way is double-counting energy.

    To put it another way, you’re saying you started with 390, and 240 enters/leaves, but somehow you still have 330 available at the ground?

    Doesn’t that mean you started with 570 at the ground?

  234. Trick says:

    Stephen: “Why so?” To make sure energy isn’t created or destroyed in the control volume.

    Study on the thread above Stephen, compare it to modern text books. As you wrote coming out of the 60’s: “to clarify UWIR in excess of the solar throughput must always match DWIR if the atmosphere is to be retained.”

    That was a keen bit of insight on Stephen’s part. DWIR increases/decreases in step with the atm. emissivity (the modern day text book physical process Stephen cannot yet see beyond mass, insolation, TOA height). As DWIR increases/decreases so must UWIR as you point out to stay in balance 239-239=0. As UWIR increases/decreases to balance DWIR so then must To. If imagine To constant, then Stephen must imagine to create or to destroy energy in the control volume.

    Think of it this way Stephen, the process that drives: “The speed of the adiabatic loop can change as a result of an increase or decrease of available energy anywhere within the vertical column” is non-constant Tavg. (= To in some discussions.)

    Tavg. increases/decreases to drive the correct speed of the adiabatic loop that then doesn’t destroy or create energy. This is what is observed in the UHCN observations of near surface Tavg. thermometer readings, Tavg. not constant. Albedo not changing in lockstep.

  235. Trick says:

    Max : “I don’t know what the 333 number is supposed to be…”

    Trenberth doesn’t break it down that I can find. The thermals & evap. get absorbed in the atmosphere, then along with a bit of solar incoming absorbed due to an overlap of spectrum, and the atm. all by itself, all return to surface in the 333.

    17+80+78+158=333

    Thermals, evap., and ~half the atm. emissivity do not go directly to space on their own.

    If you want to explain different energy flow numbers, suggest finding the paper discussion, tracing the orig. cites, and explain why the difference.

  236. Max™‮‮ says:

    Ok, but Trick, if you have 396 at the ground, and 240 leave at the top… you’re not getting 333 back to the surface without pulling energy out of nowhere.

    I don’t care for his numbers on Evap/Cond, so I’ll go back to mine, 30 and 108 respectively.

    We’ve got another 66 for the atmospheric window, so we’re at 140~ hanging around in the lower atmosphere, 66 completely escaping, that leaves around 190~ or so to be absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted in various directions.

    I do not know why you think 190 up/down somehow makes the 333 value justifiable.

    If we have 66 to space and 190 absorbed by the atmosphere, well, as you said, 239-239=0, so all but 17 or 18 of that 190 up manage to escape out into space.

    Even if you add that to the conduction/evap numbers, we’re still looking at 150~160 hanging around in the lower atmosphere tops, unless you’d like to suggest the atmosphere multiplies energy so it can absorb 190 from below, emit 173 upwards AND emit 173 downwards?

  237. Trick says:

    Although Trenberth makes the cartoon look authoritative, he talks about “residuals” in the text. This means after eliminated all else, what is left must be true (Sherlock Holmes term). It could be the 333 is one of his residuals, I can’t find much if any discussion on it. See what you can find.

    Again, if you want to use different numbers cite the orig. and explain why. I might even follow you.
    396 at ground to 240 at top is not the whole flow story, see the other flows adding as you wrote above. There is no energy created or destroyed in the cartoon, only Stephen can so imagine.

    Well, there is the 0.9 missing, in the process creating a million blog posts on missing Trenberth heat. I would congratulate him for guts and coming so close with plausible stories. Go figure. I gotta’ go to other stuff today.

  238. Max™‮‮ says:

    I worked from first principles, took the values in here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/NASA_earth_energy_budget.gif and calculated suitable values for the different processes.

    333 is a hell of a residual, and yes, I’ve read the text btw. You’re not the only well read poster here. 😀

    396 up, minus conduction, minus evapotranspiration, minus radiation direct to space leaves less than 200 no matter how you slice it.

    The only POSSIBLE way to get 333 back from the atmosphere is to pretend the only thing that takes away from the original 396 value is direct radiation to space, which means you’re counting energy twice, which is what Trenberth did.

    The only thing left when you don’t double-count energy is the 180 or so absorbed by the atmosphere, there is no way to turn that into 333 downwards, sorry, what is suggested is not what is actually left, so it is not actually true.

  239. Trick says:

    I don’t get any double counting, ~half atm. 158 to space et. al., ~half 158 to surface. The 157 DWIR to surface works for Tavg. = 289K in the heat eqn. Will try to follow your logic later, maybe tomorrow.

  240. Max™‮‮ says:

    158+158+108+30+66=520

  241. Konrad says:

    I have yet to build the IR shields to reduce incoming IR to the boxes from the ceiling and lamps. However the last day has been 4.5C cooler than initial tests. I am now seeing the CO2 box run 0.5C cooler over a 10C rise.

    CO2 intercepts very little IR from the target plates however it is radiating some energy acquired through this intercepted IR as well as energy acquired via conduction through the top window of the box. With the IR shields I will be able see a greater temperature differential between the boxes.

    Radiative cooling at height is vital for convective circulation in an atmosphere heated at the surface. If convection stalls our atmosphere warms. CO2 has a very minor effect in our atmosphere, but that effect is cooling.

  242. Trick says:

    Max – The NASA budget you linked is from 2003. I am going to stick with the Trenberth et. al. 2009 budget for discussion purposes. I am not real interested in getting deep into the flows and how they change as progress is made.

    Looking at making sense of your numbers, where you don’t care for Trenberth Evap/Cond so use 30&108, I just can’t reassemble it, I tried and my head hurts. Joules and percents are a problem for me too. If I stick to W/m^2, I don’t get as quickly lost. Use Trenberth if you want to discuss with me.

    The atm. in the clear absorbs 316 all by itself and emits 158 up and 158 down (which computes Tavg.~289K so Trenberth is safe). This is how atm. adds up rounded:

    78+17+80+356 = gross 531 absorbed by atm. and clouds so 531 emitted by atm. & clouds thusly:

    17+80+78+158 = gross 333 emitted by clouds and atm. DOWN absorbed by surface.
    11+30+158 = gross 199 emitted by clouds & atm. UP + 40 windowed from surface = 239 emitted to space.

    333+199=532 not 531 so rounding added 1 or that is the missing ~1, dunno.

    239in-239out=0 LTE

    I get every one of those flows, see no double counting. The 11 is hard to see, it is the incoming solar absorbed and emitted by clouds directly. The 30 is absorbed by clouds from surface and emitted by clouds up. I get Stephen’s adiabatic loop is the 17+80. I do not get his diabatic loop.

    For surface L&O:

    161+333 = 494 absorbed by surface & emitted as 17+80+396 = 493 with 0.9 net absorbed somewhere in L&O surface.

    I do not follow your 520 which is close to 531 or 532 in/out clouds+atm. unless it is just you rearranging Trenberth:

    158+158+108+30+66=520

    If you want 66 in the window, have to subtract 26 elsewhere, too confusing.

    I do not follow why you write this:
    “I do not know why you think 190 up/down somehow makes the 333 value justifiable.”

  243. wayne says:

    Trick, what everyone tends to ask is if 520 or 530 wm-2 is absorbed by the atmosphre then the atmosphere must likewise lose 520 or 530 J/s/m-2. To radiate that 520 or so from the atmosphere the atmosphere would require to be at a temperature of at least some 309 K. How do you ever justify this huge amount of internal energy and the temperatures?

  244. Max™‮‮ says:

    Dealing with the watts is just confusing the issue, here, do you have a problem with this, which is adapted from the Trenberth 2009, with CERES flux estimates?

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

    “On average, 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere. Earth’s average surface temperature is maintained by two large, opposing energy fluxes between the atmosphere and the ground (right)—the greenhouse effect. NASA illustration by Robert Simmon, adapted from Trenberth et al. 2009, using CERES flux estimates provided by Norman Loeb.)”

    100% in from the sun, at 340 W/m^2

    29% reflected by clouds and surface
    23% absorbed in the atmosphere

    Finally 48% absorbed by the surface.

    Now we’ve got the other side of the energy flow: the surface is at 288 K to start with.

    At that temperature there is 117% of the solar 340 W/m^2 available to be radiated upwards, for a total of all forms of energy transfer from the surface which adds up to 396 W/m^2.

    We’ve got 5% going up into the atmosphere as convection, and 25% as evaporation.

    We’ve lost 12% through the window, 9% emitted by clouds, and 50% emitted by the atmosphere for 71% of the incoming energy lost to space.

    We can take the 23% absorbed earlier by the atmosphere and the 5%+25% up from the surface to get 53% of the incoming energy floating around in the atmosphere, or 3% left after we remove the emissions to space.

    We can subtract the 5%+25% convection/evaporation and the 12% window from the 117% upwards and we’ve got the atmosphere winding up with 78% of the solar input just floating around inside it.

    Now, there’s still 9% that needs to be accounted for from the clouds, so let’s reduce that to 69% left in the atmosphere.

    You can add that to the 48% absorbed by the surface from the sun and get the 117% value we started with at the surface.

    At no point does the 100% back radiation enter the picture.

    If you try to include it you wind up with 148% down, something like 508 W/m^2, where does this extra 31% come from?

    I notice that you’re adding the energy lost by convection/evaporation to the potential black body radiation from the surface, why is that?

    Is that where the extra 31~% comes from?

    Are you saying that a 288 K surface can radiate 396 W/m^2 as an almost- lack body at full power AND power convection AND power evaporation?

    Wouldn’t that either mean convection and evaporation are free, with 0 W/m^2 cost, or a 288 K surface with no convection or evaporation would radiate 508 W/m^2?

    Isn’t that what a surface with the same emissivity at 309 K would emit?

  245. Trick says:

    wayne 5:45am – Yes, on balance as I wrote, “…531 absorbed by atm. and clouds so 531 emitted by atm. & clouds…” for LTE.

    “…309K. How do you ever justify this huge amount of internal energy and the temperatures?”

    It does seem weird, but it is what it is. Perhaps someone here already has the physics interpretation, pretty sure someone else already has it somewhere. I’m interested enough to look around for an explanation. So far all I find is no explanation in EO/ESRL/NOAA stuff built for high schools et.al. Digging into KTF2009, its ref.s , or new updated ref. or a text book might find a decent answer.

    *****

    Max – There are problems (headaches) with your first & 2nd link, which cites the Trenberth 2009 stuff which I sort of “get”. It changes the 341 incoming to 340, the silly term “backradiation” from 333 to 340, the outgoing to 241 from 239 and most the others are off a few W/m^2 due to rounding the percentages. All a headache, no reason to do all that in a new cartoon. Crazy. Use Trenberth cartoon; I know you want something else than W/m^2 – just find one that is accurate, precise to TFK2009, I’ll get it.

    Another problem – use of inaccurate MSM terms “Green house effect”, “greenhouse gas molecules” instead of physically correct “infrared active gas molecules”. A bit of a weakness in TFK2009 also.

    Max continues: “ If you try to include (backradiation) you wind up with 148% down, something like 508 W/m^2, where does this extra 31% come from?”

    Is this 508, the Trenberth 531? I assume so. Then I found it all above, there is no extra 31% when balance sheet accounting is CPA level like in TFK2009.

    Max continues: “I notice that you’re adding the energy lost by convection/evaporation to the potential black body radiation from the surface, why is that?”

    Adding AND subtracting, really.

    I like your term above, the evap./rain & conv. thermals is the energy from surface running around doing pushups in the control volume and I also like Stephen’s “adiabatic loop” term for describing these processes which are technically inside the control volume and not crossing out of it so have no effect on the heat balance eqn. Their “speed” (Stephen’s term) do not matter for balance. If “faster” up, then “faster” down at LTE.

    If it could rain in space or thermals floated up past the moon (really past the orbit of CERES on TERRA) then these pushup flows would be in the heat eqn. & in Earth reality accounted for in Tavg. as having passed out of the control volume – but these processes going out of control volume is obviously nonsense.

    As wayne points out the atm. 531 W/m^2 & resulting 309K needs a better explanation, help search for one. How does it get more than gross solar? I have read others perplexed about that and never run across a good interpretation, answer, explanation – call it what you will.

  246. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Their “speed” (Stephen’s term) do not matter for balance. If “faster” up, then “faster” down at LTE.”

    Perhaps that is where Trick has a misapprehension.

    It is only the energy locked into the adiabatic loop that remains the same up or down.

    If the adiabatic loop speeds up or slows down it affects the rate at which energy at the surface from the diabatic loop is lifted upwards towards space.

    That portion is not the same up or down.

    A faster adiabatic loop speeds up the water cycle and lifts GHGs higher and faster to improve the efficiency of energy loss to space.

    Thus does the speed of the adiabatic loop matter by way of regulating the speed of energy flow through the diabatic loop.

    If more GHGs compromise the flow of energy through the diabatic loop then the adiabatic loop speeds up to offset the effect.

  247. Trick says:

    Stephen – Where is the diabatic loop shown in Trenberth cartoon?

  248. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trenberth’s cartoon contains various components that could all be considered part of the diabatic loop.

    Basically the diabatic loop is simply the aggregate of all the warming effects that incoming solar energy has on the Earth system as a whole.

    They form part of the diabatic loop because energy is added in order to achieve the outcome.

  249. Trick says:

    Stephen’s diabatic loop aggregate is then 239-239=0. Stephen’s “adiabatic loop” is 17out from surface to17in to surface (17in included as component part of the 333) or 80out of surface to 80in to surface (80in included as another component part of the 333) internal control volume energy doing pushup loops.

  250. Max™‮‮ says:

    100% in from the sun, at 340 W/m^2

    101.9 reflected by clouds and surface
    78 absorbed in the atmosphere

    Finally 161 absorbed by the surface.

    Now we’ve got the other side of the energy flow: the surface is at 288 K to start with.

    At that temperature there is 117% of the solar 340 W/m^2 available to be radiated upwards, which means the total of all forms of energy transfer upwards from the surface has to add up to 396 W/m^2.

    We’ve got 17 going up into the atmosphere as convection, and 80 as evaporation.

    We’ve lost 40 through the window, 30 emitted by clouds, and 169 emitted by the atmosphere for 238.5 of the incoming energy lost to space.

    We can take the 78 absorbed earlier by the atmosphere and the 17+80 up from the surface to get 175 floating around in the atmosphere, or 6 left after we remove the emissions to space.

    We can subtract the 17+80 convection/evaporation and the 40 window from the 396 upwards and we’ve got the atmosphere winding up with 259 floating around inside it.

    Now, there’s still 30 that needs to be accounted for from the clouds, so let’s reduce that to 229 left in the atmosphere.

    You can add that to the 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun and almost get the value we started with at the surface, 390, oh, and the residual of 6 left after removing atmospheric emissions to space makes it 396.

    At no point is there enough energy available in this diagram to add an extra 333 anywhere, so I do not see how there is a way to justify it being tacked on to the right side of the picture.

  251. Trick says:

    “We can take the 78 absorbed earlier by the atmosphere and the 17+80 up from the surface to get 175 floating around in the atmosphere…”

    I printed out the cartoon and crossed off all the flows you mention. All are crossed off except 356 and 333. You missed the 356 net big arrow up from surface shown going to “absorbed by atmosphere”. You never include this 356 atm. inflow or the 333 atm. outflow down arrow. TFK2009 shows:

    “78+17+80+356 = gross 531 absorbed by atm. and clouds so 531 emitted by atm. & clouds” to remain in balance LTE results in 333 emitted by gross atm. to surface.

    12/23 in Desert Rock, Nv. DWIR (really the TFK2009 silly “backradiation” flow term) actually measured 333 at Noon.

  252. tallbloke says:

    Trick:
    You never include this 356 atm. inflow or the 333 atm. outflow down arrow. TFK2009 shows

    It’s unphysical. Trenberth is breaking the first law so far as I can see. How can a surface with an emissivity of around 0.9 be at a temperature of 14C if it is emitting 356W/m^2 of UWIR AND 80W/m^2 latent heat AND 17W/m^2 thermals?

    It doesn’t add up.

  253. Max™‮‮ says:

    Yeah, of course I don’t include the 356 up arrow, it’s wrong, there is no way to get 396+17+80 W/m^2 out from a surface at 288 K.

    Either the surface is actually at 309 K or that up arrow should be 259 up, not 356.

    Similarly the highest you can get the down arrow is 235, otherwise you need to explain the wizardry involved in making a surface radiate more energy than it could possibly emit.

  254. Trick says:

    “…no way to get 396+17+80 W/m^2 out from a surface at 288 K.” Max crosses out 356 to 259 a difference of 97.

    I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. However the UWIR was measured near 396 at Desert Rock, Nv. 12/23 at Noon. There must be some way. It is not even summer there, the near surface air temperature was near steady at 279K at the time.

    Perhaps TFK2009 (really CERES) is right for the global energy not Max. Check the text for way. I will too. One possibility is that the surface temperature herein might be different than near surface air temperature 288K.

  255. tallbloke says:

    Ah, the old cake an eat it routine. 😉

    I’ve explained to Tim F before about why we shouldn’t ignore the difference between surface temperature and near surface air temperature, but he always does when it suits his argument. Anyway, the calibration of IR measurements is a tricky business to be sure. Cold logic beats warmist IR instrumentation I think.

    Have you got a link to the CERES data Trick?

  256. Trick says:

    I can’t find anything obvious in TFK2009 for Max to leg into supporting 259 instead of 356, the paper seems pretty sure of the 396 in the section p. 315 explaining its provenance from spatial and temporal sampling with a window of 40 to get to 356 (not Max 259) and an additional 17 and 80 flux explained above that. I will go with TFK2009 for now since seems supported with NOAA ESRL observational evidence. Maybe this is just my bias, until a newer paper surfaces ‘splaining 259.

    At least Max goes up from 0 to 235 now calling NOAA ESRL term DWIR “atm. residual”.

    TB: “…CERES data”?

    I looked around actually, other than the “lotsa’ full disks” comment I couldn’t find much on the ‘net for how all the CERES data was reduced to something useful. Maybe a better search or going thru TFK2009 ref.s would find a source. There is not much I’ve found to date about how CERES observations were detail reduced to the now famous (infamous?) cartoon. I am not that interested in doing the work past a cursory search. Or reading thru the extensive ref.s w/o an NSF grant, ha.

  257. tallbloke says:

    The fact of the matter is that CERES FLASHFLUX data is not publicly available in any useable form, portable IR sensors are a joke, and Trenberth’s energy budget is up shit creek. The other big problem with ‘Upwelling IR’ is that most of it is being re-absorbed and emitted sideways. It’s just the transient expression of the air temperature, which is predominantly controlled by Sun, convection and water vapour’s latent heat, not radiative properties. Maybe that’s how Trenberth ends up double counting energy.

    You go with whatever you wish Trick, but I’ll be adding health warnings to comments which don’t warrant the certainty with which they are posted.

    HNY

  258. Trick says:

    TB: “Cold logic beats warmist IR instrumentation I think.”

    Oh wait, now I get that. LOL, warmistas are suspect at work on instruments too, huh? Someone posted a link around here showing calibration techniques were improved CY2005 to +/- 2 W/m^2 and NOAA ESRL regularly recalibrates (didn’t keep the link but found picture of the work station on their site.)

    These are engineers taking pride in getting instrument design & calibrations right, not a political party, sort of like CBO keeping the 2 U.S. parties straight. ell o ell.

    “‘Upwelling IR’ is that most of it is being re-absorbed and emitted sideways.”

    Sure, it is a bath.

    “..portable IR sensors are a joke,..”

    Maybe so, but NOAA ESRL are fixed, agree with other fleets of fixed instruments, the data is checked & calibrated. TB, this is not like you, where you need science to be convinced not speculation.

    You think maybe CERES was a political warmista instrument? Or any hidden data was kept secret in order for a political statement? Geez. That’s hard to do, I don’t think NASA smart enough or could pull it off even if they wanted. I haven’t heard of paper calling BS on TFK2009, is there one?

    You want to worry about something? Whilst searching for CERES information, I came across a site that seeks to explain away the nearby volcano CO2 emissions are not just going straight into Mauna Loa monitoring instrument. What do you think? Are they just kidding us and really just reading the nearby volcano summit CO2 outgasssing?

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

  259. tallbloke says:

    Trick: Trenberth’s energy budget diagram was superceded by NASA’s a while back. They don’t attempt to show separate flows up and down for IR, but just show the net outgoing. There’s a good reason for that. As for quoting the UWIR figure at a specific location (where there is likely little humidity) on a specific day at noon as if that supports TKF, well, you’re just having a laugh.

  260. Max™‮‮ says:

    Max crosses out 356 to 259 a difference of 97.” ~Trick

    Well, not quite, Max started from 396 and subtracted the known losses: 17 convection, 80 evaporation, 40 window, which leaves 259 for radiation.

    I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. However the UWIR was measured near 396 at Desert Rock, Nv. 12/23 at Noon. There must be some way. It is not even summer there, the near surface air temperature was near steady at 279K at the time.” ~Trick

    Upward infrared which tells you the surface was 288 K, which does nothing to address my point about evaporative losses, and doesn’t really address the energy removed from the surface by conduction/convective losses either.

    Perhaps TFK2009 (really CERES) is right for the global energy not Max. Check the text for way. I will too. One possibility is that the surface temperature herein might be different than near surface air temperature 288K.” ~Trick

    Ok, sure, let’s go with the surface being hotter, at 309 K there is 508 W/m^2 available, -17 W/m^2 for conduction/convection (491 left), 80 W/m^2 from evapotranspiration (411 left), 396 W/m^2 from radiation (15 left) of which 40 W/m^2 make it through to space, for 356+80+17 W/m^2 entering the atmosphere (443 from the ground) plus the 78 it absorbs from the sun (521 in the atmosphere).

    The atmosphere emits 169+30 to space, leaving 322 floating around.

    I guess at this point the 322 is emitted downward preferentially for some reason, so that adds to the 161 down from the sun to give 483 and uh… I guess add in the 15 “extra” from the surface for 498, still missing 10 W/m^2 somewhere.

    Interestingly, if you take the 161 W/m^2, 508 W/m^2, and what the heck, toss in the “extra” 15 W/m^2, you get 683 W/m^2, which is almost the average insolation across the illuminated hemisphere!

  261. tallbloke says:

    Also, the Sun is at perihelion in midwinter and that makes the noon insolation considerably higher. Arizona is within the tropics isn’t it? If so, it will also get nearly full zenith radiation even at winter solstice.

  262. Trick says:

    tallbloke 11:18pm: That chart is incomplete from 1999 high school exercise book in a 2003 NASA HS article. They left out the UWIR/DWIR for an exercise to be done by students, text reads:

    “Convection, evaporation, and radiation from the surface exceed the total amount of energy that was absorbed by the surface to begin with! This is impossible unless there is a missing element of the energy budget. In fact, there is: the Earth’s atmosphere contains water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, which absorb energy radiated toward space and then emit some to space and some back to the Earth’s surface.”

    It is earlier stuff than TFK2009, not too much different though. They left the surface temp. as exercise, I’m interested enough to order a copy of the 1999 book. Window was 20 at the time, outgoing was 239.

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/62319main_ICS_Energy.pdf

    ******

    Max 11:30pm – Fun with numbers I guess. The 322 isn’t preferential as you imply making up its own mind, it is Stephen’s adiabatic loop coming back plus half the atm. by itself plus absorbed solar 78 that the simple heat eqn. assumes goes directly thru to surface (the 333 really).

    I am still interested what is the “surface” technically in KTF2009. The 288 is near surface atm. Tavg. from GHCN not dirt or water T, we know that. I may poke around some to try and pin this down.

  263. Trick says:

    tallbloke 11:56: Yeah not global, my basic point was to connect the near surface temperature and UWIR field at specific site at same time. I was surprised to find UWIR/DWIR so close to Trenberth at Noon peak. Yes, a laugh. I’ve never thought of Ariz. being in tropics, maybe it is by defn. – so much to research…ha. Never ends.

    Also, I know need be careful about sites. The Bohren Fundamentals of Radiation book from PSU shows a wrong assumption by authors in a Madison, Wisc. text comparing local atm. to a desert. They looked up the actual numbers and they were counterintuitive, more water vapor over desert at the time than in Wisc.

  264. Trick says:

    Well, geez, now they have thermals & evapo./transp. on the right. How can THAT be moved? Seriously, rounded the surface to 398 (and the 356 to 358 increasing the stress in Max). And the gross DWIR is 340, I wonder if they got that from the 100% earlier rounding. Strange but true. What fun. I’m sure it is warmista conspiracy now. /sarc

  265. tchannon says:

    Trivia from Tim.

    Did you know there is data showing insolation in excess of the simplistic maximum? Perfectly correct.

  266. tallbloke says:

    Trick: lets recap. You were asked how a body at 289K with an emmissivity of ~0.9 could be losing ~80W/m^2 in latent heat, 17W/m^2 in thermals and supposedly radiating at 356W/m^2 too.

    To which you responded with a handwave about near surface air temperature and a single IR measurement from Arizona.

    You’re in no position to be flinging /sarc tags around.

    By the way, you’ll notice that in very small writing on that latest NASA energy budget, Travesty Trenberth’s name appears…

  267. tallbloke says:

    Tim, do tell us more. 🙂

  268. tchannon says:

    Reflects off the sides of clouds.

  269. tallbloke says:

    You know, I’ve been wondering about that since I noticed that shafts of sunlight coming through cloudbanks in the distance have different angles.

  270. Trick says:

    TB 2:27am: “Travesty Trenberth’s name appears…”

    Yeah, I noticed. You would think NASA could at least copy the Trenberth cartoon right. Hence my sarc tag. Reminds one to always go to the original ref.

    “You were asked how a body at 289K with an emissivity of ~0.9 could be losing ~80W/m^2 in latent heat, 17W/m^2 in thermals and supposedly radiating at 356W/m^2 too.”

    Not supposedly radiating – actually measured radiating b/c the analogue works amazingly well for Earth. The emissivity is 1.0 of the surface body in the heat eqn. & Trenberth atm. body emissivity .793.

    The surface “body” isn’t at 288K – the near surface atm. is where the temperature is GHCN measured. No one measures the global Tdirt AFAIK, so say Tdirt is whatever Max says for the Trenberth cartoon.

    I too question the surface body temperature. We don’t know, this doesn’t tell us. I have answered somewhere above or in the other thread. I’ll repeat without looking up my prior post, this might be a bit different – no copy/paste. Max is right to talk about the dirt being a different higher temperature, but nothing in the simple analogue is useful to determine Tdirt, Twater.

    The simple analogue heat eqn. can’t be stretched too far or disaster arrives. This Tdirt is an example. The basic heat balance 239-239=0 IS helpful to understand some basic physics. TFK2009 doesn’t really write the limitations, they are in the texts or ref.s which many posters don’t bother to look up, so don’t avoid disaster.

    What exactly does the Teq. =289K correspond to? Is it the temperature of the surface dirt? No, all that can be said about calculated 289K is it is the radiative equilibrium temperature (that’s what Teq. means above) of a black surface that absorbs about 239 W/m^2 of radiant energy above which is another surface, the atm., with emissivity of 0.793 which does not absorb any solar radiation. The lower surface is black to the radiation emitted by the atm. and radiation is the only form of energy transfer, this is what is meant by radiative equilibrium LTE. Note we are talking about almost flat 1 meter^2 surfaces of avg. radius ~6371m. This is Stephen’s diabatic loop.

    This simple analogue then has Stephen’s adiabatic loop processes superposed in TFK2009 & given Stephen’s title “…the ignoring of adiabatic processes – big mistake.” Using the simple model, it is possible to frame some testable hypotheses, even to estimate relative changes if used judiciously. Which I showed above. Can also see that the “speeding up” of Stephen’s adiabatic loop has no affect whatsoever on Stephen’s diabatic loop.

    For example, in Stephen’s diabatic loop if emissivity of atm. is increasing b/c of the increased amounts of infrared active gases, this analogue suggests that Teq. the temperature in the lower atm. could increase. By what amount? This TFK2009 analogue can’t even tell us for sure whether the amount is negative, 0 or positive. So it is safe no-call from a career (and posting) standpoint if avoid disaster from stretching analogue too far.

  271. Max™‮‮ says:

    Max 11:30pm – Fun with numbers I guess. The 322 isn’t preferential as you imply making up its own mind, it is Stephen’s adiabatic loop coming back plus half the atm. by itself plus absorbed solar 78 that the simple heat eqn. assumes goes directly thru to surface (the 333 really).

    The atmosphere emits 169 to space, clouds emit 30, window lets 40 out directly.

    If the atmosphere is emitting 169 up, at most it could emit 169 down, right? So we’ve got to account for up to 338 now, right?

    17+80 conduction/evaporation leaves 241, 78 absorbed from the sun directly leaves 163.

    So the ground needs to contribute 175 out of 396.

    Minus 40 from the window, 30 to account for the clouds radiating up, 326-175 leaves 151 “extra”, plus the 161 from direct insolation means we’ve got 312 W/m^2 too many.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    How do we resolve that?

    I guess clouds should emit up and down, so that drops it to 161+121 “extra”… if we subtract conduction/evaporation then we’re down to 161+24 “extra”.

    Doesn’t work out right.

    Hmmm, let’s see…

    169+30 from atmosphere/clouds, let’s assume the same amount emitted downwards for 398 in the atmosphere.

    Subtract 17+80 leaving 301, take off 78 and we’re at 223 that would have to come from surface radiation.

    Let’s see if we can make sense of that.

    Start at 396, gonna take the convection/evaporation from it here to give 299, minus 40 through the window leaves us at 259, which is more than enough to account for the atmospheric and cloud emissions to space with 36 left over.

    If we sum the residual there to the 161 from the sun we hit 197, and now we can make sense of 199 down to get 396 at the surface.

    It’s pretty clear at this point that the math for the Trenberth budget only works if you subtract convective and evaporative losses from the surface 396 value.

    However you rearrange it, there just isnt enough there to get 333 W/m^2 down.

    _________________________________________________________________________

    Note that this is purely an examination of the numbers Trenberth uses, at no point should this be taken as me endorsing the idea that 199 W/m^2 of downward infrared is responsible for raising the surface above where it would be with just the solar input.

    I am only trying to show that there is extra energy which is claimed to be in the budget that doesn’t actually make sense if it is included.

    One could make a case that the Trenberth et al budget shows 199 or 235 W/m^2 transmitted downwards from the atmosphere to the surface, but attempts to justify the 333 W/m^2 number clearly require the convective and evaporative energy to come from a source besides the 396 W/m^2 available at the surface.

    Unfortunately if you do this you wind up unbalancing the rest of the budget and need values from 493 to 508 or more W/m^2 available at the surface initially.

    For the record:

    At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody
    emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law
    R=εσT⁴,
    where the emissivity ε was set to 1.
    ” ~Trenberth et al (2009)

    They note that of course emissivity isn’t unity, etc, etc but yeah, they’re not starting out with a surface at 309 K that emits 508 W/m^2.

  272. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Can also see that the “speeding up” of Stephen’s adiabatic loop has no affect whatsoever on Stephen’s diabatic loop”

    How would that work when a faster adiabatic loop would speed up convection leading to a faster water cycle delivering surface energy sooner to the tropopause for earlier exit to space and also lead to GHG molecules (and all other molecules too) being lifted up faster, sooner and higher to improve the efficiency of radiation to space?

    Those faster processes need only match the (assumed) warming effect of GHGs to negate the effect of GHGs altogether.

    Would work in reverse too.

  273. Trick says:

    Stephen – For a faster Stephen adiabatic loop still have 239-239=0 so there wouldn’t be any earlier exit to space, there would be an earlier exit back to the surface (going back down the 333 Trenberth “chute”). Your adiabatic loop isn’t net warming/cooling surface as you correctly wrote and would work in reverse. Only your diabatic loop, as you correctly wrote, has incident radiant energy net warming/cooling of the near surface atm.

    Max – Writing the surface at 309K is ok, that is the dirt/water that is emitting your 508 not the 288K near surface avg. global atm. as measured by GHCN. Yes, for the record, Trenberth uses surface emissivity = 1.0 and atm. at 0.793 back calculated to balance TFK2009 “…blackbody
    emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law.”

  274. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick.

    A faster / slower adiabatic loop speeds up / slows down the upward part of the diabatic loop in the ways that I told you.

    And it is always an opposite sign response to the effect of the forcing element in the diabatic loop.

    I think that has been your mental block throughout.

    I have been trying to tell you all along that the adiabatic loop, whilst having a net zero effect in itself, nonetheless affects energy transmission through the diabatic loop by virtue of its ability to vary in speed.

    All this time and you still don’t get it however I formulate the words.

  275. Trick says:

    Stephen – Well, what I show is the basic physical science; it doesn’t matter how Stephen formulates words or imagines things. Whatever comes out of science is what comes out in nature. Ok, how about this Stephen consistent, true to basic physical science scene:

    On a pass of CERES looking at scene below, Stephen’s adiabatic loop has speeded up in low pressure system causing the diabatic loop to speed up as in Stephen’s imagination. CERES measures: 239-240=-1.

    Near surface atm. temperature cools off a bit at Noon, it is cold & windy at the beach, people stay in the beach bars.

    The next CERES pass looking at the same scene, weather has improved, CERES measures: 239-238=+1

    Near surface atm. temperature warms up a bit at Noon, it is warmer at the beach, people lay out on the sand.

    No net diabatic loop warming, faster adiabatic loop up then slower adiabatic loop down. Next day CERES measures back to 239-239=0. Trenberth spatial and temporal averaging diabatic climate process never notices the weather adiabatic blip.

  276. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trying to be too clever, Trick.

    The extra wind stops it from getting warmer at noon, or at all.

    And you switched round the causation to get the result you wanted. AGW theory starts with an effect from GHGs and then the response in the adiabatic loop is equal and negative.

    The reality is this:

    i) Starting position has the system more or less in equilibrium as set by mass, gravity and insolation but still subject to some variability due to internal system variations.

    ii) Along comes a new forcing element such as more GHGs from human sources which has an effect on the transmission of energy through the diabatic loop. You say GHGs slow it down so lets assume that is correct though I am doubtful.

    iii) The extra energy in the air (not at the ground) expands the atmosphere and energises the adiabatic loop which then runs faster. The consequence is a more rapid water cycle and a higher atmosphere up through which radiative gases can be lited higher and sooner than otherwise to increase radiation out.

    iv) There is no more energy in the adiabatic loop than before but it runs faster so the speed of upward (not downward) throughput in the diabatic loop is increased to offset the effect (probably imagined) of more GHGs.

    So, applying your analogy, CERES sees no change because the imagined +1 from more GHGs is almost immediately offset by the -1 from the faster throughput of energy that would result from the accelerated adiabatic loop and faster upward portion of the diabatic loop.

    We can see that that is what really happens because there is no longer significant warming now that the sun has gone quiet and the climate zones are shifting back equatorward again despite more human emissions than ever before for the past 15 years.

    And until the radiative theory was thrust into the textbooks and down the throats of unsuspecting students it was settled science that only mass, gravity and insolation controlled surface temperatures.

  277. tallbloke says:

    Stephen, have you got any of these old text books you keep mentioning?

  278. Trick says:

    Stephen says: “The reality is this: “i) Starting position has the system more or less in equilibrium as set by mass, gravity and insolation…”

    Evasion.

    Not in nature’s reality Stephen. Only in Stephen’s imagination. The modern day text basic physical science demonstrates more than Stephen’s simple imagination; the science goes over Stephen’s head. My 3:30pm post doesn’t even mention infrared active gas (Stephen’s GHG). Just uncomplicated equilibrium basic physical science, yet Stephen needs to respond launching into non-science based evasion.

  279. Stephen Wilde says:

    Rog,

    Afraid not. I did have one that I’ve tried to find but it doesn’t seem to have survived a house move.

    I did refer to the issue in my post on another thread where I found a site that confirmed that mass and gravity alone raises the cores of gas giants to temperatures at which they radiated out to the surrounding atmospheres more energy than was being received from the sun at TOA.

    No need for GHGs to do that, just mass and gravity and the same principle apples to any planet.

    .

  280. Trick says:

    Stephen4:36pm – Yes, once the accumulation of mass hence gravity in a collapsing interstellar gas cloud reaches the pressure required for nuclear reaction, this process raises their cores to much higher temperatures. No need for infrared active gas; gas will be mostly hydrogen. Same process going on in planet gas giants, just not enough pressure for sun like nuclear stardom.

  281. Trick says:

    Stephen – Can you remember a text/author name? I see texts available from library syndicates that copyright date way back. I always try to get th latest (c), could try to get the earliest for discussion.

  282. Max™‮‮ says:

    Writing the surface at 309K is ok, that is the dirt/water that is emitting your 508 not the 288K near surface avg. global atm. as measured by GHCN. Yes, for the record, Trenberth uses surface emissivity = 1.0 and atm. at 0.793 back calculated to balance TFK2009 “…blackbody
    emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law.”
    ” ~Trick

    No, writing 308 K at the surface is not ok, they flat out said the surface is at 288 K and emitting radiation as though it had 1 emissivity.

    That means the evaporative and convective energy is subtracted from the initial 396 to leave 299, of which 40 make it space leaving 259, of which 223 is needed to account for the atmospheric and cloud radiation to space, so we have 36 left over which adds to the 161 from insolation giving 197, and then we can tally the 199 down from the atmosphere to get the 396 back at the surface again.

    For some reason Trenberth et al forgot to account for the energy losses of convection/evaporation, and though everything else added up they were left with extra energy which they added to the 199 down for some reason to give 296, and then they stuck the “leftover” 36 in there and rounded it up to get 333 back down to the surface.

  283. Max™‮‮ says:

    To sum it up:

    239 in-239 out=0 ~Space balanced

    199+40 total lost to space, 199 up needs 199 down
    97+78+223=398 ~Atmosphere balanced

    288 K surface with unity emissivity has 396 available
    396-97-40-223=36 remaining, 36+161+199=396 ~Surface balanced

  284. Trick says:

    Max syas: “No, writing 308 K at the surface is not ok, they flat out said the surface is at 288 K and emitting radiation as though it had 1 emissivity.”

    Come on Max, it is simple exercise to search TFK2009 for the word “surface”. Here are clipped phrases you will find:

    “At the surface, the outgoing radiation…surface flux… net surface radiative heating…. global mean surface radiation…surface upward radiation…surface emissivity….back radiation to the surface…surface LW radiation….global surface energy budget…surface-reflected radiation….the energy imbalance at the surface…global mean surface upward LW…surface evaporation…”

    The search turns up two phrases where surface temperature is mentioned:

    ”…near-surface temperatures… surface skin temperature…”

    Writing 308K at the dirt surface based on TFK2009 surface energy flux density as you do is certainly ok based on TFK2009 contextual use of “surface fluxes” and in context use of near-surface temperature.

  285. wayne says:

    I’m not saying much because Max’s doing an A-1 job at explaining it to Trick. 🙂

    Max: Substituting the new 66 wm-2 for the 40 wm-2 and letting the solver rebalance the energy budget now surprisingly has zero NET ir upward from the surface other than the 66 window radiation directly to space and it now has an effective emissivity of 0.602, not 0.667. Hmm…
    I’ll post that if anyone wants to see that version.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/emissivity-puzzle-energy-exchange-in-non-vacuums/

    Trick: Have you never paused on that spreadsheet to digest each step? It couldn’t take more than ten minutes to type the entire sheet in. I used the exact figures in small type on TFK2009’s graphic and could never get even the left SW to work out exactly without dropping the TSI to ~1361 but I believe they claim 1364 or 1366.

    Also, it’s then easier for you to double click on any yellow calculated cell and see and check the calculations highlighted in colors. Make D18 be “=(D16-D6)^2” and set it to be minimized while changing D11. That simple.

  286. Max™‮‮ says:

    “At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody
    emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law
    R=εσT⁴,
    where the emissivity ε was set to 1.”
    ~Trenberth et al (2009)

    There is nothing supporting any other interpretation but this one, the math even adds up, but to get 333 down you need to double count convective/evaporative losses or start from a warmer surface than they did in their energy budget.

  287. Trick says:

    “Max’s doing an A-1 job at explaining it to Trick.”

    Thanks guys, I appreciate the attention.

    “Trick: Have you never paused on that spreadsheet to digest each step?”

    I paused and could not make sense of the lack of several fluxes turned on by assuming surface emissivity < 1.0. Turn them on appropriately, I might get more interested going deeper than the simple heat eqn. These would be wayne’s missing heat (e.g. 223 NOT 356). TFK2009 only misses 0.9 and doesn’t double count.

    I believe the missing flux is the main reason wayne finds & writes an “effective” or “operational” emissivity of the avg. global L&O surface around 0.67 when no physical measurement agrees, even close, that I am aware.

  288. Trick says:

    Max! Right in your own clip I see they write:

    “At the surface…”

    See, that’s where the flux is coming from, TFK2009 doesn’t write “Near the surface, the outgoing radiation…”. See your clip for what they do write. They do write near-surface temperature.

  289. Stephen Wilde says:

    On the basis that Trick is intelligent enough to present every possible variant by way of opposition to my hypothesis I think it is worthwhile plugging away.

    He doesn’t seem to value concepts expressed verbally so my thanks to those who are dealing with his objections on mathematical grounds.

    However I think we should get away from that notorious Trenberth cartoon and simplify it greatly as set out here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10704&linkbox=true&position=6

    “An Accounting Error by Climate Science. “

  290. Max™‮‮ says:

    “Max! Right in your own clip I see they write:

    “At the surface…”

    See, that’s where the flux is coming from, TFK2009 doesn’t write “Near the surface, the outgoing radiation…”. See your clip for what they do write. They do write near-surface temperature.” ~Trick

    Yeah, not sure if you’re disagreeing with me at this point.

    The average temperature of the surface is given as 288 K, they calculated outgoing radiation at the surface as being from a source at 288 K, which means one of two things:

    1. The surface magically doesn’t cool through evaporative and convective processes, meaning the 97 comes out of nowhere.

    2. The surface realistically does cool through evaporative and convective processes, meaning the 97 comes out of the 396 available at the surface.

  291. Trick says:

    Max – I am trying to show wherever radiative flux is discussed, use “at the surface” h=0. Wherever temperature of 288K is discussed use near surface height of the GHCN thermometers in atm. above local surface. The avg. global temperature near the surface measured by GHCN is 288K.

    The calculated outgoing radiation is at the surface h=0 not being from a source at 288K near the surface. The surface does cool thru evap. & thermals 97 at the surface superposed on the radiative equilibrium of 396 emitted at the surface.

  292. Max™‮‮ says:

    Using that logic, wouldn’t that make the same value for the moon 2.7 K (the CMBR temperature)?

    They specifically stated that it was a calculation as though the surface was a black body at 288 K, the same value taken as the average temperature of the planet. Not that it was a surface which was hot enough to emit 396 W/m^2 after accounting for evaporative/convective losses, that would need the surface to be 309 K and emit 508 W/m^2 upwards.

    Working the math for that as I did above you get:

    239 in-239 out=0 ~Space balanced

    199+40 total lost to space, 199 up needs 199 down
    97+78+223=398 ~Atmosphere balanced

    309 K surface with unity emissivity has 508 available
    508-97-40-223=148 remaining, 148+161+199=508 ~Surface balanced

    Looks reasonable enough, but where is that 148 residual supposed to go while everything else is circulating around in the atmosphere? Does it add to the 398 without increasing the amount making it to space? So we’d have 199 up, 333 down, and 14 extra? How the heck would that work exactly?

    If we’re starting at 309 K, why is the GHE said to be 33 K when the surface is apparently 54 K warmer than the 255 K effective emission temperature now?
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Hmmm, if the surface average is actually 309 K, that means there would be 508×2.55×10¹⁴=1.2954×10¹⁷ Watts available from the day side hemisphere alone.

    The sun provides a total of about 680×2.55×10¹⁴=1.734×10¹⁷ Watts to that same hemisphere.
    Which works out to around 1.22×10¹⁷ Watts after albedo.

    Where does the day side get the other 7×10¹⁵ Watts from? I mean, sure it’s only ~27 W/m^2, but that’s minor compared to the really big question: where does the other 1.2954×10¹⁷ Watts available at the surface on the night side hemisphere come from?

    How do you get 2.58×10¹⁷ Watts available from the entire surface when the entire output from the sun works out to only 47% of that?

    Why does that seem plausible? It’s not like it’s the only explanation, I worked out a perfectly balanced budget without any need to explain this huge extra energy input: http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o396/maxarutaru/science/daynightbudget_zps55e9bde5.png so I’m a little confused why we need to accept such extreme claims as “the atmosphere provides 53% of the energy the planet receives, with the remaining 47% coming from the sun” when the math supporting those claims is most easily explained as a simple accounting error.

  293. wayne says:

    “I paused and could not make sense of the lack of several fluxes turned on by assuming surface emissivity < 1.0. Turn them on appropriately, I might get more interested going deeper than the simple heat eqn. These would be wayne’s missing heat (e.g. 223 NOT 356). TFK2009 only misses 0.9 and doesn’t double count.

    I believe the missing flux is the main reason wayne finds & writes an “effective” or “operational” emissivity of the avg. global L&O surface around 0.67 when no physical measurement agrees, even close, that I am aware."

    Right Trick, that is why I am careful to label that "effective emissivity". But there are no assumptions being made, all of the yellow cells are calculated to balance all flows by a solver. The only inputs, the blue cells, come directly from TFK's data they report in the paper and the graphic. Maybe you think I was pulling some 'tricks', I am not.

    What the effective emissivity says right back from their data is the surface at 288-289K does not in reality emit even close to what TFK report. What I gather is the far right of their graphic, the IR section, is not speaking of the entire atmosphere any more as the other right-side net portions but is taken at ground-zero and they are making some unrealistic assumptions, emissivity one and a pyrgeometer pointing upward is reading the lower 50-100 meters of temperature assumed also at emissivity one.

    But if you want to ask: What is the entire atmosphere's energy balance?, what the graphic is suppose to be telling, look a bit deeper in that spreadsheet for the correct answers, the data is telling you the story, not me.

  294. Konrad says:

    It does not matter that the figures given in Trenbertian energy budget cartoons for conductive flows of energy to the atmosphere from the surface are false. (if the main mechanism for surface cooling for temperatures below 100C was radiation, then passive heat sinks on circuit boards simply would not work).These diagrams are intentionally designed to deceive. They do not accurately represent the physical movement of energy through the atmosphere due to vertical convective circulation. The true importance of convection to atmospheric temperatures CANNOT be modelled with a simple liner flux equation.

    This experiment http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg shows the importance of energy loss to space from the atmosphere in the upper troposphere. Box 1 models an atmosphere with radiative gasses, box 2 an atmosphere without. Using 1C cooling water and 60C heating water with flow rates around 1 litre a minute, a temperature differential of over 20C can be achieved in under 30 min. None of the AGW linear flux equations cover the basic physics that cause this differential.

    This image shows what is happening in the boxes. http://tinypic.com/r/eb2448/6 In an atmospheric column with a pressure gradient, energy loss at altitude is critical for continued convective circulation. In box 2 the convective circulation stalls and the average temperature rises. The only mechanism for energy loss at altitude in our atmosphere is radiative gasses radiating IR to space. CO2 cools our planet.

    My current empirical experiment can be seen here- http://tinypic.com/r/osz9cw/6
    This experiment explores the role of radiative gasses in a gas column above a surface heated by SW visible radiation.

    Two tall vertical boxes are constructed of 25mm EPS foam. The internal vertical walls are covered in aluminium foil. In the base of each box is an aluminium target plate (190 x 190 x 2mm matt black). One box is filled with air the other with CO2. 50W halogens are heating the aluminium target plates at the base of each box . The top windows of each box are made of LDPE cling wrap double glazed (SW/IR transparent). Internal box volume is 225 x 200 x400mm. Currently the CO2 filled box is slightly cooler in experiment runs as would be expected from the previous experiment. Tomorrow this experiment will be improved by the addition of transparent IR shields between the lamps and the boxes. These will be ice water cooled glass that will prevent stray IR from the ceiling and lamps from entering the boxes.

    If anyone reading this thread knows of a similar empirical experiment that covers conduction, convection and radiation in a gas column above a SW heated surface, I would greatly appreciate a link.

  295. oldbrew says:

    Joseph Postma sounds off about the greenhouse effect again here.

    ‘…it is all due to the whole premise being based on an enigma, on the comparison between two numbers which, even though they have the same unit, do not actually mean the same thing at all. In other words, apples and oranges. It is why the greenhouse effect can not actually be mathematically quantified with actual heat-flow physics, and why adherents use conflicting and contradictory descriptions to argue their pseudoscientific case.’

    http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/27/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-8-what-is-the-ghe/

  296. Trick says:

    Konrad 10:58am: “None of the AGW linear flux equations cover the basic physics that cause this differential.”

    What is an AGW flux eqn. exactly? And what is the basic physics causing the differential?

    ******

    Max – “They specifically stated that it was a calculation as though the surface was a black body at 288 K…”

    Sure at the surface is a BB h=0, not near-surface atm. They specifically wrote 1) the near-surface atm. temperature of 15C (i.e. h=the stevenson screen boxes or mountings GHCN uses) and 2) the radiation flux at the surface (i.e. h=0).

    “Not that it was a surface which was hot enough to emit 396 W/m^2…”

    They never talk about temperature at the surface h=0. They always use GHCN results for Tavg. an “atm. gas surface” if you will. Only Max is talking about the temperature of the dirt being 309K AFAIK.

    “239 in-239 out=0 ~Space balanced” Check.

    “199+40 total lost to space, 199 up needs 199 down” Check.

    “97+78+223=398 ~Atmosphere balanced” No check. I do not see this 223 in the TFK09 cartoon*. Here’s how the cartoon uses the 199 to balance the atm.:

    97+78+356-333-199 = -1 the balance due to rounding or the absorbed 0.9. No 148 residual. See, Stephen is right, it is a mistake to ignore what Stephen calls the adiabatic processes.

    ******

    “How do you get 2.58×10¹⁷ Watts available from the entire surface when the entire output from the sun works out to only 47% of that?”

    The round earth isn’t a sun, only 0.9 is net available from the sun for earth dirt & surface water. The surface is balanced except for the 0.9 net sun absorbed. Check the arrows left to right:

    161 absorbed -17 emitted -80 emitted -396 emitted + 333 absorbed = 1 the (0.9really) being absorbed.

    Interestingly, searching the web for responses to the TFK09 paper, no one else I could find is complaining like Max about a “surface hot enough to emit 396..”. Seems all I found are complaining about the 0.9 absorbed.

    *Max explains the 223 above: “169+30 from atmosphere/clouds, let’s assume the same amount emitted downwards for 398 in the atmosphere. Subtract 17+80 leaving 301, take off 78 and we’re at 223 that would have to come from surface radiation.”

    So Max uses 398 -17 absorbed -80absorbed -78absorbed =223 atm. which is not accurate to the TFK09cartoon. Max misses have to start from 531 absorbed in the atm. (not 398) as I showed above 12/26 5:12am.

  297. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    December 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm
    “What is an AGW flux eqn. exactly? And what is the basic physics causing the differential”
    ——————————————————————–
    Trick,
    By flux equation I am of course referring to energy flow per unit area. Typical AGW calculations are in watts per metre squared. By linear flux equations I am referring to attempts to model energy flows such as those falsely quantified in Trenberthian energy budget cartoons.

    These cartoons are intended to deceive and distract. That is clearly working on this thread. People are intended to debate the false values given to each flow without noticing the critical flow that is missing. That critical flow is the transport of energy by the physical movement of gasses. This cannot be modelled with a flux equation.

    “what is the basic physics causing the differential?” Convection. In both boxes heated gasses rise to the top of the box. In box 1 the gasses can cool at the top of the box and convective circulation can continue. In box 2 the gasses cannot cool once they have risen and convective circulation stalls. Box 2 fills from top down with hot air resulting in a far higher average temperature. In Earth’s atmosphere the only way for convective circulation to continue is for radiative gasses to emit IR to space from the mid and upper troposphere. Quite simply the AGW team has got the basic physics of our atmosphere wrong.

  298. Trick says:

    Ok, thanks Konrad. So you suggest the 17 physical movement of gasses by convection going up to mid and upper troposphere is false, deceptively too low – not the right amount as shown in Trenberthian (I like the term) workouts. Further you suggest this convective flow is the critical one and assigning only 17 means the basic physics understanding of our atmosphere must be wrong. As Stephen suggests in top post, ignoring this type of flow is a big mistake. Have I got that?

    Gives me something to work through; I have not looked into the 17 very much given the huge 333 that attracted my interest. I have looked into the 80 a bit and given the global rainfall avg. and runoff seems decent data exists to support the 80 which also can’t be ignored per Stephen.