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.
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?
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Trick says:
December 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm
————————————————————
Trick,
No, I am not going to debate the values given to these energy fluxes. What should be clear from my previous comment is that I am disputing the calculation method used to model the role of radiative gasses in our atmosphere. You can use flux equations but you would need to run an iterative computer program modelling individual air masses to get close to the right result. Modelling fluxes between a static atmosphere or static atmospheric layers will not work.
Divide your 2D model atmosphere into many individual air masses with x,y coordinates.
Calculate for the fluxes into and out of each air mass.
Calculate the change in buoyancy for each air mass.
Update the x,y coordinates.
Run the flux equations for each air mass again.
Calculate the change in buoyancy for each air mass.
Update the x,y coordinates.
Run the flux equations for each air mass again.
Again, again and again.
An iterative computer program is the only way you can use maths to calculate the transport of energy by the physical movement of gasses in our atmosphere. Or you could simply use an empirical experiment 😉
Ok, Konrad 11:30pm, but can’t deny this one basic iteration from 1st principles works for Earth pretty dang close with all measured Trenberthian parameters so it is no coincidence for control volume around atm. and earth surface (no gravity working rate anymore – gravity compressed outgassed atm. long ago):
Change in internal energy wrt time = heating rate + working rate
DU/dt = Q + W = 0 at equilibrium per 1st law, U is constant leads for Earth to text book heat eqn.:
(1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.793/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 289.1K
This works b/c of the optical thickness atm. of Earth allowing 1 iteration to be derived that close. I agree more interations as Konrad writes will get from 289.1K to 288K measured by GHCN. Proof of that pudding really is Venus where analysis of multiple layers as Konrad writes is necessary to get even close to the right surface Tavg. ~732K (b/c Venus atm. so much more optically thick).
I’ve written a lot about text book radiation, not so much if at all about Konrad’s convection interest. Convection term first coined in 1834 for the 1797 discovery of a process showing thermally driven mass motion of fluids and its role in transferring energy. Ignoring convection process is a big mistake as Stephen writes above.
Text book shows us at the planet surface (ground dirt for Max) total energy flux q is the sum of the qc from convection and qr from radiation if we ignore conduction from below ground.
Total energy flux density at surface q =qc+qr which then means Trenberthian flux workouts are ok at least so far as superposing them.
Something about radiation and convection combined can be learned from dew and frost formation. For dew or frost to form, the surface temperature must drop below air temperature. We learn quickly 1st time shivering in a cold, howling wind that in that condition convection dominates the total energy flux, a planet surface cannot fall (much) below air temperature and hence neither dew or frost are likely to form.
Clear, still nights favor the formation of dew or frost in my experience. Not much convection in those conditions so radiation dominates total energy flux density.
So I ask Konrad, any insight on whether the global average near earth surface Tavg. is more from a cold, howling wind where convection dominates total energy flux density or a clear, still night when radiation dominates total energy flux density?
Konrad have any input so far? Am I on the right track? Don’t yet know where this comes out. More science discovery ahead for me.
“There is widespread agreement among the other
estimates that the global mean surface upward LW
radiation is about 6 W m−2 higher than the values
in KT97 owing to the rectification effects described
in the “Spatial and temporal sampling” sidebar. We
adopt a value of 396 W m−2, which is within 2.1 W m−2
of all estimates but is dependent on the skin tem-
perature and surface emissivity (Zhang et al. 2006)
and can not be pinned down more accurately. To
compute the land and ocean contributions, we use
the ISCCP-FD ratios.” ~TFK2009
“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.
If we define a global mean as Tg , then T = Tg + T ́, where the T ́ refers to departures from the global mean in either time
or space. Therefore, T4 = Tg^4 (1 + T ́/Tg )^4. We expand the bracket and take the global mean, so that the T ́ and T^3 terms vanish,
and then
The ratio T ́/Tg is relatively small. For 1961–90, Jones et al. (1999) estimate that Tg is 287.0 K, and the largest fluctuations
in time correspond to the annual cycle of 15.9°C in July to 12.2°C in January, or 1.3%. Accordingly, the extra terms are
negligible for temporal variations owing to the compensation from the different hemispheres in day versus night or winter
versus summer. However, spatially time-averaged temperatures can vary from −40°C in polar regions to 30°C in the tropi-
cal deserts. With a 28.7-K variation (10% of global mean) the last term in (2) is negligible, but the second term becomes a
nontrivial 6% increase.
To compute these effects more exactly, we have taken the surface skin temperature from the NRA at T62 resolution and
6-h sampling and computed the correct global mean surface radiation from (1) as 396.4 W m^−2 . If we instead take the daily
average values, thereby removing the diurnal cycle effects, the value drops to 396.1 W m^−2 , or a small negative bias. However,
large changes occur if we first take the global mean temperature. In that case the answer is the same for 6-hourly, daily,
or climatological means at 389.2 W m^−2 . Hence, the lack of resolution of the spatial structure leads to a low bias of about
7.2 W m^−2 . Indeed, when we compare the surface upward radiation from reanalyses that resolve the full spatial structure the
values range from 393.4 to 396.0 W m^−2 .
The surface emissivity is not unity, except perhaps in snow and ice regions, and it tends to be lowest in sand and desert
regions, thereby slightly offsetting effects of the high temperatures on LW upwelling radiation. It also varies with spectral
band (see Chédin et al. 2004, for discussion). Wilber et al. (1999) estimate the broadband water emissivity as 0.9907 and
compute emissions for their best-estimated surface emissivity versus unity. Differences are up to 6 W m^−2 in deserts, and
can exceed 1.5 W m^−2 in barren areas and shrublands” ~TFK2009
There is no mention of GHCN in the paper at all.
“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.” ~Trick
Yeah, see, I wasn’t talking about what it absorbed from the ground, just what it has to absorb to get the right emissions.
If it’s sending 199 out to space then it should send the same amount to the ground and total to 398.
If it totals to 531 then why isn’t it sending 265 up and 265 down?
If it’s sending 333 down, why isn’t it sending 333 up?
I used the 223 absorbed from the ground value because it is what their numbers actually work with, because I don’t buy the argument that the surface can have evaporative and conductive losses while still radiating like a black body.
1. TFK2009 starts with a surface at 288 K.
2. A black body at 288 K will emit 396 W/m^2.
3. A black body is not a surface which loses energy to convection and evaporation.
4. Evaporation and convection in the amounts TFK2009 work with requires 97 W/m^2.
5. That energy has to come from somewhere, if the surface temperature we’re starting with is 288 K, and there is 97 W/m^2 lost from convection and evaporation, then there isn’t 396 W/m^2 left to radiate directly.
Max – The 17&80 are superposed on the 396, not part of it. 17&80 comes from & goes to surface in the 333. The surface is not at 288K. Tsurf. is whatever the surface is. The atm. near surface is at 288K (15C), which is from GHCN. I’m trying to find the provenance of the 17. Not easy. Can you?
“If it totals to 531 then why isn’t it sending 265 up and 265 down?”
Good question, let’s develop an answer.
Konrad – After a few hours of research, I have found thermal energy flux global averages close to zero at night over land surface; I can see if surface & atm. near same T then not much action. Over the oceans, this 2003 paper says: “The time series of the sensible heat fluxes at 10 locations in the test area are basically consistent, and the rms of sensible heat flux difference ranges between 12.5 and 17.3 W/m^2.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485(2004)034%3C0968%3AANMFEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I have not found anything on daytime land where dry parking lots must contribute to all those popcorn clouds. TFK09 thermals at 17 don’t seem debated much anywhere. That’s not really a lot to go on though.
Konrad said:
“In Earth’s atmosphere the only way for convective circulation to continue is for radiative gases to emit IR to space from the mid and upper troposphere”
Not sure about that.
If there are no radiative gases then there is still a reduction of pressure and thus temperature with height and so convection would still be present.
In the absence of radiative gases the only way the system can shed heat is from the surface and so any energy that rose from the surface via that convection and became converted from KE to PE in the process would have to be returned to the surface and reconverted to KE before it could be radiated out.
If one then adds radiative gases then they by pass the adiabatic loop from and back to the surface and so facilitate quicker heat shedding partly by radiating straight out and partly by radiating down so that the surface can radiate out without waiting for that returning PE/KE from the slower adiabatic process.
Radiative gases in the mid and upper troposphere, by radiating straight out, actually deny energy to the adiabatic loop which then slows down as compared to the speed required if there were no radiative gases.
Hence the negative system response that I have been banging on about.
Whatever the radiative gases do the adiabatic loop changes speed to negate it.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2012 at 6:57 am
“If there are no radiative gases then there is still a reduction of pressure and thus temperature with height and so convection would still be present”
——————————————————————-
Stephen,
Adiabatic cooling for an ascending air mass is matched by adiabatic heating on decent. Adiabatic processes are therefore neutral in convective circulation as they do not represent actual energy gain or loss. For convective circulation to occur there must be energy gained low in the atmosphere and also energy lost higher in the atmosphere.
The results of this two box experiment http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg are very clear. Box 1 with the heating element at the base of the box and the cooling element at the top has continuous convective circulation and runs far cooler than box 2. Box 2 has both cooling and heating elements at the base and runs far hotter as gas heated by the heating element rises to the top of the box and does not return to be cooled at the base.
Convective circulation requires a fluid in a gravity field.
Convective circulation for a requires both energy gain and energy loss.
Convective circulation requires that the zone of energy loss be higher than the zone of energy gain.
Other than radiative cooling at altitude (primarily from water vapour), there is no force in our atmosphere powerful enough to return heated gases to the surface from 15km high.
“there is no force in our atmosphere powerful enough to return heated gases to the surface from 15km high.”
Agreed it won’t return heated gases but by the time the gases reach that height they have cooled by expansion and become denser so they then descend again and warm up as they do so from adiabatic compression.
Now I don’t dispute trhat there is much radiation out from above the surface due to the water cycle releasing energy when vapour condenses and direct radiation out from radiatively active gases but that is just the upward portion of the diabatic loop.
There is still energy in the air in PE form which does not leave the system and that does get back to the surface again being reconverted to KE along the way.
Agreed that the adiabatic loop is thermally neutral in itself but it would still be present with its associated convection even without GHGs.
If there were no GHGs then radiation could only occur from the surface but there would still be convection and the adiabatic loop.
Hence my assertion that with or without radiatively active gases the adiabatic loop is always present in any planet with an atmosphere and it is the delay time inherent in that loop which determines surface temperature.
GHGs help radiation to space which denies energy to the adiabatic loop which slows down and the increase in time delay for the lengthened adiabatic loop offsets the cooling effect of GHGs.
The opposite if GHGs were to have a warming effect.
That is why radiative characteristics cannot affect surface temperatures.
“The surface is not at 288K. Tsurf. is whatever the surface is. The atm. near surface is at 288K (15C), which is from GHCN. I’m trying to find the provenance of the 17. Not easy. Can you?” ~Trick
The Trenberth diagram assumes the surface emits like a black body at 288 K.
Plus “atm. near surface” is meaningless without quantifying the height and surface temperature.
Which incidentally has a huge effect on conduction calculations, you can say “the atmosphere is 1 K cooler than the surface” but I need to know the height you’re talking about, do you mean 1 cm? That gives around 2 W/m^2 for conduction. Did you mean 1 mm instead? Now we’re talking about 23 W/m^2 I assume you didn’t mean .1 mm, as that would be something silly like 238 W/m^2 from conduction alone.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/bodcon.html#c2
Then you have to account for the effect of wind at the surface, bringing in cooler air, carrying away warmer air, and so forth.
Never mind that though, what I wanna know is what similarity the TFK2009 model has to real world measurements like this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=tbl&date=2012-07-06&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
Or this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2012-07-06&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
Or this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2012-07-06&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
_______________________
July in Montana: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2012-07-02&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
I see 400 to 380~ down, 420 to 500 up, 0 to 820 net solar, -70 to 650 total net energy and a temperature range from 281 to 292 K.
__________________________
Same plot for Nevada: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2012-07-02&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
I see nearly constant 380 down, 500 to 620 up, 0 to 850 net solar, -100 to 590 total net energy, and a temperature range from 295 to 310 K.
Note that there is almost no day or night variation in the down values, despite location and temperature ranges being very different, while the up values change significantly.
Also note that the downward value has no spikes where the cloud cover interrupted the solar input briefly in the Montana graph… in fact, looking at several graphs the most unusual are the ones where there is any significant variation in the down radiation, leading me to think it is assigned rather than measured, as I remain very dubious at the idea that both Nevada and Montana and several other locations receive exactly the same amount of downward radiation all day for days at a time, with total variations being on the order of a few percent total.
No, if that value is real it has to be some other source, something that doesn’t vary significantly in time or space.
Stephen 6:57am: “In the absence of radiative gases the only way the system can shed heat is from the surface and so any energy that rose from the surface via that convection and became converted from KE to PE in the process would have to be returned to the surface and reconverted to KE before it could be radiated out”
Yes. This is Stephen’s adiabatic loop Trenberthian 17+80 up, 17+80 down. Hypothetically is simply superposed on top of Stephen’s 0 diabatic loop for hypothetical non-radiative 0 emissivity of the atm. gases. Surface 161in+78in – 239out to space radiated from surface. The internal 97 convective energy doing pushups round & round.
“If one then adds radiative gases then they by pass the adiabatic loop…”
Yes, exactly. Stephen’s diabatic loop is then superposed on top of Stephen’s adiabatic loop.
Surface 161-17-80-396+(17+80+78+158=333) = 0.9 absorbed in surface; 158+11+30+40=239 emitted to space.
“Radiative gases..deny energy to the adiabatic. Hence the negative system response…”
How? By what process? How does radiation know to deny from convection and by what amount exactly? This does not follow from Stephen’s logic above. Somehow Stephen misses that surface q total = q convection+q radiation text book superposition. There is no interaction qc and qr in the text book because there is none in nature.
Heat flows from net convection, conduction and radiation. All different processes simply superposed to get the net total as observed in nature.
Max – “Plus “atm. near surface” is meaningless without quantifying the height and surface temperature.”
Yes somewhat but mostly meaningful actually, all we can say for sure is near surface at whatever height the GHCN thermometer global avg. measures Tavg=288K. Some info. is painful to not know, this near surface delta h is pretty painless in the big scheme, a meter or two can be safe in a defined 100km high atm. Thus the h=0 surface dirt/surf. water BB global avg. temperature is unmeasured exactly. A point I had missed until you launched into this discussion.
Do you disagree the GHCN thermometers have a global avg. height a meter or two above local h=0 for ease? Some on walls, some in Stevenson screens on grass, some on building roofs? I’m not sure global avg. thermometer height above local ground h=0 is even known. No one cares enough to do the work? Anybody know?
Max 1:29pm – “No, if that (DWIR) value is real it has to be some other source…”
Space aliens?
Here is Table Mountain, no sign of space aliens:
Here is how ESRL keeps the space aliens away:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/getcals.html
Somewhere I saw the empty chair in a photo of a calibration workstation showing the BB calibration instrument used. They point the field instrument in there. Can’t find it now. Just contact the engineer or tech that sits in that chair, they will likely talk your ear off about their DWIR instrument calibrations, how ornery the beasts are, how accurate they are (reportedly can cal. to +/-2W/m^2), engineering problems they’ve encountered (some are listed), and how the space aliens are eliminated. I just go with what the experts say if they aren’t space aliens (or born around 1948 in Roswell, NM like some politicians in the news). Call Rhonda at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/about/contacts.html
Max – You discuss various sites, one more discussion before they drop the puck today. If the DWIR measured by ESRL really was negligible, then as Stephen seems to think, life on this planet would be a grim affair.
Near surface Tavg. would be tens of degrees K lower. Radiant emission from a human is like 4 (100 watt) bulbs. Convective transfer from a human to surroundings at a temp. 5-10K lower is comparable to radiant emission. Basal metabolism is about 100Watts. Eating large amounts of food and exercising vigorously, metabolism can be raised to perhaps 3x this amount leaving a deficit of several hundred watts.
Thank goodness for DWIR as measured at ESRL! Without it we would soon perish outside at night or on overcast days. If hypothetical desert conditions existed in absence of: clouds, water vapor, CO2, and ozone, then radiation would indeed be negligible. In reality, deserts have low precipitation, not low atmospheric water vapor. They are dry b/c they are regions of descending air (Owens Valley lee side of Sierras, Atacama on lee side of Andes).
On a given day in June Madison, Wisc., the precipitable water above was 1.09 in., 119% of avg. Same day in Tucson, Ariz. it was 0.75 in., 93% of avg. Thus the precipitable water above Tucson and Madison in June is about the same even though Tucson’s annual precipitation is less than 1/3 of Madison’s.
You could safely wager that DWIR on a clear, still night in Madison is lower than in the middle of the Sahara.
Same variations for Table Mountain, et. al. Global avg. of Stephen’s adiabatic processes (thermals, evaporation/rain) is what Stephen started the thread with way above, they are big mistake to ignore.
“How? By what process? How does radiation know to deny from convection and by what amount exactly? This does not follow from Stephen’s logic above”
By the amount radiated directly to space and which therefore does not need to be first returned to the surface via the adiabatic loop.
And note that all the necessary adjustments are dealt with way up in the atmosphere at the height where KE = PE and so the surface need not be involved.
If energy has gone straight out to space then it is no longer present to drive the speed of the adiabatic loop which must therefore slow down.
No need for ‘radiation’ to ‘know’ anything. It just isn’t there any more.
Alternatively if GHGs retain more radiation for a net warming effect then just because more energy is present the adiabatic loop will speed up.
Either way, for a zero net effect except for changes in certain atmospheric heights with the surface left undisturbed.
These interactions are currently missing from the text books.
Realistically the only thing DWIR does is let you know what the actual flux is, on all those charts there is a line ranging from 0 to -200 in some cases, but at no point does that line ever go above 0 from what I’ve found… wonder why that is?
I propose that the line representing the DWIR is just the location of the zero, and the real IR flux is actually just the portion between that line and the DWIR line.
If for some reason you wanted to present the idea that the atmosphere heats the surface, one way to go about it would be to pretend both directions are constantly exchanging IR, and then you could wrongly claim the IR emissions determine the temperature.
At that point you could actually try to argue in favor of an idea as ridiculous as “the atmosphere provides twice as much energy to the surface as the sun does”, but what possible reason would someone do that for?
______________________
The surface doesn’t receive 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere, it only looks like it does if you accidentally or deliberately ignore the direction of the vector you’re examining.
The surface loses energy to the atmosphere, 40, 50, 100, 200 or whatever value of W/m^2 you’re working with for whatever temperature you’re looking at, barring overnight inversions there is no time where that vector points back down from the atmosphere to the surface, and even in that case it is only in particular stratified layers of the atmosphere where it ever points downwards such that one could state “the atmospheric radiation is warming the surface” and have it be true.
Similarly, the atmosphere doesn’t actually lose 396 W/m^2, it loses 40 or 50 tops, that is why I ignored the 333 W/m^2 value, it’s already accounted for when you properly calculate a realistic level of radiative cooling from the surface.
Max: “If for some reason you wanted to present the idea that the atmosphere heats the surface, one way to go about it would be to pretend both directions are constantly exchanging IR, and then you could wrongly claim the IR emissions determine the temperature.”
Presenting the idea the atm. heats the surface, you would have to pretend the atm. was warmer than the surface, an inverted lapse which is measured to persistent in the arctic at times.
Yes, the poles, an area which receives little insolation does indeed get more energy due to atmospheric and oceanic transport of heat from the tropics northward.
What does that have to do with everything else between 60 N and 60 S?
Stephen Wilde says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm
“Agreed it won’t return heated gases but by the time the gases reach that height they have cooled by expansion and become denser so they then descend again and warm up as they do so from adiabatic compression.”
——————————————————
Stephen,
I am guessing I have created some confusion when I have been talking about “heating and cooling” with regard to convective circulation in the two box experiment. What perhaps I should have said is “energy input and output”.
If a volume of gas in a gravity field is maintaining a relatively constant average temperature but is exhibiting strong vertical convective circulation, that means energy must be both entering the gas and exiting the gas. For strong vertical convection such as seen in earth’s atmosphere the point of energy input must be lower than the point of energy exit.
Cooling by expansion does not represent energy exiting the atmosphere. Cooling by diffusion or conduction does not represent energy exiting the atmosphere.
Only radiation of IR to space represents energy exiting the atmosphere. This must be occurring at higher altitude than energy input for strong vertical convective circulation to be exhibited.
In the two box experiment I have demonstrated the critical importance of the relative heights of energy input and output to the average temperature of a gas column. Energy output higher than energy input leads to a significantly lower temperature. Radiative gasses therefore cool our atmosphere.
Do the AGW promoters know this? Why yes! Some of their tricks are more obvious than others. The evidence is easy to find. Do a search on the web for “convective-radiative equilibrium”. Good luck finding a paper written before 1985. After that a sudden storm of total dross designed to obfuscate and obscure.
No radiative cooling at altitude = no strong vertical convection = hotter atmosphere. It truly is that simple, radiative gasses cool our atmosphere.
Thanks for the clarification Konrad.
I do see that you propose energy loss at the top from whatever cause as an influence on convection but my point is that even without energy loss from the top there would still be a fall in temperature with height due to the reduction in pressure as one goes higher and so there would still be convection.
Let me try to reconcile my initial post with what you are saying. Your empirical experiment is fine as far as it goes but misses a component that is present in a real planetary atmosphere around a sphere floating in space.
You are really referring just to the diabatic loop whereby incoming solar energy heats the ground causing convection which then involves the water cycle and additionally raises GHGs higher so that they can radiate outward to space thus helping the system to cool.
I have no problem wth that but in reality the net outcome is on average TOA energy balance and not an excess of energy out over energy in.
Why do those cooling GHGs then not make the system cool faster than permitted by mass, gravity and insolation? Why is TOA balance maintained regardless?
You have posed the AGW theory in reverse haven’t you?
AGW theory predicts positive warming feedback from GHGs which would boil the surface. Your description predicts a negative cooling feedback from GHGs which would freeze the surface.
What we are all trying to establish is why radiative characteristics seem not to affect TOA energy balance at all.
That is why one needs my additional adiabatic loop too.
Whatever the diabatic loop (by any change in forcing elements, not just more GHGs) does that has the potential to destabilise the energy flow the adiabatic loop responds to eliminate any such disruption in an equal and opposite response to the same forcing element.
The energy within the adiabatic loop does not change because that is set by mass, gravity and insolation alone but the speed of the adiabatic loop does change as necessary in order to offset any change in the diabatic loop arising from any other cause.
It is a balancing effect within the flow rate of the diabatic loop. If anything tries to make the surface to TOA lapse rate diverge from the ideal lapse rate set by gravity then that in turn affects the speed of the adiabatic loop in an equal and opposite manner so that on average from surface to TOA the ideal lapse rate is maintained over the long term.
The key component is the upward energy flow within the diabatic loop the speed of which is regulated by the speed of the adiabatic loop.
Max: “What does that have to do with everything else between 60 N and 60 S?”
Not much, unless can find a temporary inversion where atm. heats the surface for your idea presentation. The general science is the measured DWIR from atm. slows the cooling of the surface.
Stephen 12:46pm: “The energy within the adiabatic loop does not change because that is set by mass, gravity and insolation alone but the speed of the adiabatic loop does change as necessary in order to offset any change in the diabatic loop arising from any other cause.”
A climate process somewhere on an imaginary treadmill offsetting any other cause doesn’t exist in nature.
Konrad 8:31am: “Good luck finding a paper written before 1985. After that a sudden storm of total dross designed to obfuscate and obscure.”
Sudden storm sure accelerated when related internet blogging started. Konrad is repeating experiments popular in Fourier’s time ~1820. Now use science to calibrate instruments to the experiments instead of the reverse.
******
For those really interested in doing the hard work to learn about science progress in correctly understanding & contributing to debates on Earth’s energy budget, found this Sept. 2012 book while searching for the latest developments.
The summary shows progress has been made from Stephen’s 1960’s meteorology thinking where he writes mass, insolation and gravity control planetary climate – modern planetary science has moved forward adding fundamental knowledge about nature from satellite observations, improved GHCN et. al. (don’t need imaginary climate gerbil’s adjusting treadmill speed anymore) just as the basic modern day text book 1st principle heat eqn. shows:
“The Earth’s climate as well as planetary climates in general, are broadly controlled by three fundamental parameters: the solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity.”
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Observing+and+Modeling+Earth%27s+Energy+Flows+2012
Read more of the free intro. and those seeking experimental & theoretical progress will learn more. Actually obtain & read modern day 1st course atm. thermo & atm. radiation texts and make progress in understanding and contributing to the modern day planetary science debates with knowledge based on basic nature.
Still practicing science folks, science hasn’t been perfected yet.
“The Earth’s climate as well as planetary climates in general, are broadly controlled by three fundamental parameters: the solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity.”
That isn’t a move forward. It is papering over the cracks of radiative only theory.
The albedo and emissivity are affected by atmospheric mass, the effect of gravity on that mass and the circulation that develops in order to maintain thermal balance.
“A climate process somewhere on an imaginary treadmill offsetting any other cause doesn’t exist in nature.”
That’s the whole body of meterological science into the bin then.
“Konrad is repeating experiments popular in Fourier’s time ~1820.”
Astounding, I had no idea such accurate measuring equipment was available in 1820.
“The Earth’s climate as well as planetary climates in general, are broadly controlled by three fundamental parameters: the solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity.”
It must be true ‘cos some scientist said so in a book available on Amazon.
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the Sun, with not wildly different emissivity, but the difference in overall albedo doesn’t get anywhere near explaining the ~91C difference in average surface temperature.
Trick is ignoring the obvious, and continuing with disproven assumptions about the Moon’s temperature.
Stephen: “Trick is ignoring the obvious…”
Fill me in Stephen, how does the moon somehow avoid 1st course basic natural law science principles?
I showed how the the book on Amazon is exactly traceable to Earth’s planetary fundamental natural law above in this thread. I can remind you with quotes if needed. Again, only in your imagination do I believe what some scientist said in a book available on Amazon.
Trick, those are my comments, not Stephen’s. And I stand by them.
“how does the moon somehow avoid 1st course basic natural law science principles?”
I have no idea what you mean by this question. The Moons average surface temperature is what t is, which is around 58K less than we were led to believe by the AGW propagandists as late as last year, until Nikolov and Zeller showed the correct integration and their work was then empirically confirmed by the DIVINER instrument on the Lunar Orbiter.
‘Scuse me please TB and Stephen, my mistake. Geez.
The moon follows the basic laws as do Konrad’s experiments and Earth’s climate system and the rest of the universe that science observes (but may not understand fully). Diviner confirmed that moon does follow same laws, N&Z must have used the laws properly. What were the AGW propagandists saying about the moon that doesn’t follow science? I don’t read much of that stuff but I do browse for entertainment.
One experiment IIRC Fourier participated was carbon blacking inside a container with windows exposed to the sun then measuring temp.s. Been awhile since I read your recommended Truesdell book. I see there is another one from 1969 I want to get.
Stephen 3:06pm: “That isn’t a move forward. It is papering over the cracks of radiative only theory.”
Again, the heat eqn. is traceable to the 1st principles, experiment and observation. As above. No papering over. Not radiative theory only in energy balance; as you wrote above ignoring clouds, thermals and evaporation/rain superposition is a big mistake in Earth’s climate energy flux density.
Applied properly, radiative theory works for moon as Diviner showed apparently per TB, and other planets superposed with convection, conduction. The limited theory of mass, insolation, and gravity is too restrictive for proper conclusions.
Trick, yes.
BUT
As has been shown here on the talkshop in several threads, LW radiation in the atmosphere doesn’t do anything causative until it’s taking place where it can radiate directly to space. In the atmospheres of Earth and Venus, that’s high up. How high up it is depends on the mass and temperature of the atmosphere below. That’s an outcome of the processes of incoming SW radiation convection and latent heat, and the feedback provided by the rate of cooling to space and degree of reflectivity of the atmosphere.
I don’t disagree with you that LW radiation is part of the action therefore, but it isn’t the main event in most of the system. And so, small changes in the makeup of the atmosphere will make almost no difference to surface temperatures, and what changes they do cause elsehwere will be swamped by other variables such as changes in TSI. The negative feedbacks in the system mean that cloud albedo is a function of other variables, rather than a driver of the system.
Claes Johnson has just published an iinteresting argument relevant to this discussion on Climate Realists:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10841
Yes Claes does now seem to be applying a similar principle in that he has thermodynamic processes ( my adiabatic loop) interacting with radiative processes (the diabatic loop) to reduce surface temperature sensitivity from more CO2.
However he treats top of atmosphere as 5km up which is fair enough in a simple illustration of the principle but if he were to use the actual top of atmosphere height (which varies) then I suspect he would find the net sensitivity to be zero.
5km is only about half way up the troposphere so there is plenty of scope for higher levels to adjust their lapse rates to remove any residual climate sensitivity between surface and 5km.
The aspect of Claes’s work which I have previously had a problem with was the apparent lack of recognition of a surface warming effect from what N & Z term the atmospheric thermal enhancement which is itself what I always thought was known as the greenhouse effect prior to the radiative gases theory.
If Claes and the PSI group now move to accept a mass and gravity based phenomenon in place of the radiative gas one then that would bring me more into line with their work and also their work more into line with that of others.
There is no such thing as the top of the atmosphere, just to say because it drives me right up a wall.
I use the term when discussing others assumptions, but I prefer “incoming” and “outgoing” rather than “TOA emissions” because it’s stupid to try to set an emission level at a place which doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful way… much like back radiation!
In reality we’re inside the atmosphere of the sun, so at best one can speak of the variation between gases which are on average below the escape velocity of the earth and those which are not.
That location of course changes depending on which side of the planet you look at, plus the state of the various magnetic fields involved has a rather significant role to play up there.
Max.
I regard the top of the atmosphere as the point where atmospheric molecules are no longer restrained by the gravitational field. You seem to accept that and I agree that it is highly variable in time and place.
Alternatively one could regard it as the height at which radiation in equals radiation out.
I wouldn’t put it at 5km or the tropopause as Claes seems to because that doesn’t allow enough room to completely cancel out the distortion away from the ideal lapse rate caused by the composition of the troposphere.
We know that composition distorts the actual lapse rate away from the ideal lapse rate because of the increase in temperature with height in the stratosphere due to ozone. Water vapour distorts the actual lapse rate away from the ideal lapse rate in the troposphere but in the opposite direction.
For climate stability long term one needs the actual lapse rates in the various layers forming the entire vertical column of the atmosphere to net out to the slope of the ideal lapse rate set by gravity. For that purpose we must consider the entire atmosphere regardless of the problem of measurement because there are widely differing actual lapse rates right up to and including the thermosphere.
Hence my use of two loops covering the entire depth of the atmosphere. I know that such loops are not ‘real’ in the sense that two distinct loops can be observed but it is a very helpful construct to enable understandng of the net effects overall of thermodynamics (the adiabatic loop) and radiation (the diabatic loop).
At its simplest we have a stable system whereby energy in at TOA (however defined) equals energy out and at the same time there is a separate loop whereby a fixed amount of energy (set by mass and gravity) is constantly recycled between surface and TOA (however defined) for a zero net effect.
Since both loops are net zero and since the amount of energy coming from the sun is fixed any variation in one loop alone must be offset by an equal and opposite response in the other.
If it were not so then composition changes could introduce a permanent imbalance between energy in and energy out and we know that desn’t happen.
Changing the speed of one loop whilst leaving the other loop the same could not be corrected by a simple adjustment of equilibrium surface temperature. One loop would remain faster or slower than the other in perpetuity or until the atmosphere were lost.
The proposed effect of GHGs is to slow down energy flow through the diabatic loop.
If the adiabatic loop did not fully compensate for it then heat would build up at the surface indefinitely in a permanent positive feedback which is exactly what AGW theory implies.
They say that more CO2 begets a higher temperature which begets more water vapour which begets a higher temperature which begets more water vapour ad infinitum.
A veritable Ponzi scheme.
Since it is not happening the adiabatic loop must have speeded up to maintain balance and that removes energy from the system faster.
That is why OLR increased during the late 20th century warming spell and why it may well be falling now with increased global cloudiness and less energy entering the oceans.
Yeah, I love how there is just enough of a high gain positive feedback loop to cause dangerous warming… but not enough for the surface to run away like all high gain positive feedback systems do.
Microphone squeals and the atmosphere are not very similar.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“I do see that you propose energy loss at the top from whatever cause as an influence on convection but my point is that even without energy loss from the top there would still be a fall in temperature with height due to the reduction in pressure as one goes higher and so there would still be convection.”
—————————————————————————–
Stephen,
You seem to understand the need for loss of energy at height for a deep convective cycle, but you still seem confused by adiabatic cooling with increasing altitude. Adiabatic cooling by expansion on ascent is balanced by adiabatic heating on decent. These processes do not alter the initial buoyancy of an air mass relative to the surrounding air at whatever altitude it rises to, because adiabatic processes do not represent energy entering or leaving an air mass. This is the very meaning of “adiabatic”, no energy gained or lost. In relation to convection it would also mean no buoyancy gained or lost.
An example –
– Assume dry air with a surface temperature of 15C and a dry lapse rate of 10C per km.
– In this atmospheric profile air at 5km would be -35C
– Heat an air mass at the surface to 25C and let it rise to 5km.
– The air mass will cool to -25C and will still be more buoyant than the surrounding -35C air at that altitude.
– The rising air mass may have cooled but it has not lost buoyancy relative to the air around it as it has not lost energy.
Adiabatic heating and cooling play no role in convective circulation. The dramatic cooling with altitude due to the steep pressure gradient is a distraction.
The two box experiment avoids this distraction and shows that the relative heights of zones of energy gain and loss in a gas column dramatically change the pattern of convection and the average temperature of the gas column. The experiment shows in box 2 what would happen to an atmosphere without radiative gasses. It would not matter that radiative cooling at the surface would be higher, the physical process of convection means that the entire atmosphere would heat dramatically. The height of energy loss to space is critical.
I am aware that this seams an impossibly simple mistake for the AGW team to have made, but when you look at their initial mathematical models they were treating the atmosphere as a single layer separate to the surface. Even in the Trenbertian energy budget cartoons convection is treated as a linear flux, not a physical process.
You have seen how bad the AGW team is at empirical measurement, statistics and ethics. Is there any reason to believe they are any better at fluid mechanics?
“I regard the top of the atmosphere as the point where atmospheric molecules are no longer restrained by the gravitational field. You seem to accept that and I agree that it is highly variable in time and place.” ~Stephen
You lost me at “where atmospheric molecules are no longer restrained by the gravitational field”. Your TOA must be a good way toward the moon’s orbit then, like 1000++ km. for graviation fields don’t ever end. Do you just mean a far out point away from the Earth?
I think he meant where on average the distance between molecules and higher temperatures allows them to reach escape velocity.
“Abstract. – We have investigated the sensitivity of the intensity of convective activity and atmospheric radiative cooling to radiatively thick upper-tropospheric clouds using a new version of the Colorado State University General Circulation Model. The model includes a bulk cloud microphysics scheme to predict the formation of cloud water, cloud ice, rain, and snow. The cloud optical properties are interactive and dependent upon
the cloud water and cloud ice paths. We find that the formation of a persistent upper tropospheric cloud ice shield leads to decreased atmospheric radiative cooling and increased static stability. Convective activity is then strongly suppressed. In this way, upper-tropospheric clouds act as regulator so f the global hydrologic cycle, and provide a negative feedback between atmospheric radiative cooling and convective activity.”
So it would seem that even AGW team players can slip up when desperate to push the “high altitude clouds cause warming” meme…Strange that they never thought to ask what would happen to convective circulation if all radiative cooling from the atmosphere was suppressed such as the removal of all radiative gases.
Konrad.
I’m still having a problem seeing how you come to the conclusion that there would be no convection if there were no GHGs.
It is true that adiabatic cooling and warming balance out. That is intrinsic to my adiabatic loop but still, temperature declines with height.
The reason being that at higher levels KE gets replaced by PE so the temperature drops.
You can say that the atmosphere gains energy dramatically at every level by adding KE to PE at each height but only the KE will show up as ‘heat’ and the amount of KE declines proportionately with height.
So there would still be convection and an adiabatic loop even without radiative gases.
Note that I don’t disagree with the essentials of your findings just the particular conclusion that there would be no convection without GHGs.
I don’t see why you need that conclusion. Don’t your findings work perfectly well enough without that conclusion?
Of course there is convention because
1. the energy flux is significant
2. highly critically the system is dynamic, entire regime is complex as in complex math, there is never steady state, system is in motion
In addition non-gaussian behaviour is everywhere, related to chaos, dimensionality.
(1) and (2) are about breaching the wall of linear, steady state.
Why we get “periods” of exceptional weather, just the thing to scare the witless into all going to die from drought, heat, flood, cold, wind, ice, farts.
I suggest it would be useful to figure out what kind of chaos is present since it might give some clues or ideas on what to do next.
Seems to me there is a dimensionality change at the troposphere/stratosphere interface. Evidence is in the vertical profiles.
To illustrate what Tim just said about people being scared unnecessarily, England has been a washout this year. A lot of people can’t remember a wetter years, and yes, there have been floods. It is the wettest year on record for England.
Is this somethng to be worried about in climate terms?
Not really.
The total precip in England this year is one rainy nights worth more than the DRIEST year in Scotland since the 1930’s.
To clarify something about the KE and PE discussion.
Pick up a ball without changing the temperature of the ball, at the surface it will have a certain temperature, say it is 288 K since it’s familiar.
Every additional meter you raise it, you’re exerting some number of Watts.
1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a kg at one meter per second squared, an object weighing a kg on the ground exerts 9.8 Newtons on the ground.
A Joule is what you get for applying 1 Newton over 1 meter, which requires work. It is also one amp through a resistance of one ohm for one second. In general a Joule is best though of as having done something, when you’re at the bottom of a pushup you are exerting a certain amount of force on the ground, when you raise your body it takes a certain number of Joules to perform this work.
A Watt is work for a period of time, a number of Joules for a number of seconds, it is power, how quickly work is performed.
_______
Holding an object weighing 98.1 grams a meter off the ground means it is exerting a Newton on your hand.
Raising it from the ground to one meter in a second takes 1 Joule of work.
Performing that much work for a second takes a Watt of power.
Force is exerted (Newtons), work is performed (Joules), power is applied (Watts).
____________
The potential energy of the weight is the force it exerts on your hand, it is not directly related to the kinetic energy yet.
If you drop it it will accelerate and that potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy until it hits the ground, it will perform work on a lever if you drop it on one, and that work can be applied to something if you arrange it properly.
_______________________
If you do this with tiny objects, and drop them into a pile of other tiny objects, the potential energy from the higher objects will be converted to kinetic energy as they collide, the density variations will cause some clumps of objects to rise, and others will begin to sink. Overall this PE to KE exchange will balance out.
Adding KE directly at a different level of the atmosphere (through radiation) will result in more KE available after that parcel of air reaches the ground, taking the PE it had originally and adding it to the KE it gained above the surface.
It is unlikely that said parcel would immediately descend rather than having more energy available than the local molecules, and thus distributing it as one would expect.
Stephen 12/30 11:10pm: ”…top of the atmosphere as the point where atmospheric molecules are no longer restrained by the gravitational field.”
wayne 12/31 1:11am: “Your TOA must be a good way toward the moon’s orbit then, like 1000++ km. for gravitation fields don’t ever end.”
Yeah wayne, the g fields never die, they just fade away like old soldiers (from a song of British WW1).
Max 1:26am: “…higher temperatures allows them to reach escape velocity.”
Interestingly, top of thermosphere (375miles, 600km) temperatures reach about 2,000C (3,600F).
The M-B distribution most probable speed for N2 at that temperature is 1,133 m/s where ~11,200 m/s is escape velocity. So even 375 miles high at 2000C those N2 molecules are still very much restrained by the gravitational field having most probably only 1/10 the speed needed to escape. Another needless worry eliminated. The N2 get the energy needed for that mean KE directly from the sun.
For Earth atm., the Exosphere is the outermost layer. It extends from the top of the thermosphere to 6,200 miles (10,000 km) above the earth.
Whenever Stephen writes about TOA adjusting height just right, must mean exosphere top end defined at 10,000km adjusts just right since “In this layer, atoms and molecules escape into space and satellites orbit the earth.”
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/layers.htm
HNY all. Bottoms up. Look forward to more fun discussions in 2013.
Most probable is not the only speed, and I didn’t say all of them reach escape velocity, just some.
I also noted that we’re actually inside the atmosphere of the sun for a reason.
Max – If you run the M-B numbers for the whole atm., only 1 out of 10^335 N2 statistically will have a higher speed than 11,200 m/s to escape and there are fewer than 10^44 N2 molecules. The H2 are lighter and do escape
I’m not quite sure why you’re focusing on N2, the upper atmosphere stratifies based on composition.
Oh, and 11.2 km/s is at the surface, escape velocity is not constant, easiest way to see is to think about an object falling into a gravity well from flat spacetime, the escape velocity at a given point is how fast it would be falling at that point.
At the event horizon of a black hole it rises to c, if it was c at any distance from the whole we would all be inside every event horizon everywhere, clearly this is not the case.
As I recall around 10 thousand km from the surface it drops under 7 km/s, and at the moon the escape velocity relative to the earth is like 1 km/s or something?
“…at the moon the escape velocity relative to the earth is like 1 km/s or something?”
What a thread. N2 b/c it is lighter than O2 the other big ppm. O2 is not good to go either in M-B vel. distrib.
The escape velocity Ve a molecule must have at the surface such that its speed ~infinity is zero Ve=(2*g*Re)^0.5
Re~6400km, g=9.8m/sec^2 so Ve earth ~ 11,200 m/sec.
Rmoon~1737km, g=1.63 m/sec^2 so Ve moon ~ 2400 m/sec
At the distance of the moon the velocity needed to leave the earth’s gravity well is around 1 km/s.
One second…
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
At 250,000 km above the surface the escape velocity from earth is 1.78 km/s.
_________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere
“Upper boundary
In principle, the exosphere covers all distances where particles are still gravitationally bound to Earth, i.e. particles still have ballistic orbits that will take them back towards Earth. Theoretically, the upper boundary of the exosphere can be defined as the distance at which the influence of solar radiation pressure on atomic hydrogen exceeds that of the Earth’s gravitational pull. This happens at half the distance to the Moon (190,000 kilometres (120,000 mi)). The exosphere observable from space as the geocorona is seen to extend to at least 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi) from the surface of the Earth. The exosphere is a transitional zone between Earth’s atmosphere and interplanetary space.“
In view of the comments about the definition of TOA we should take it as the height at which energy out equals energy in.
Thus:
i) If more GHGs have a warming effect by holding onto solar energy for longer then that height rises, the expansion of the atmosphere gives more radiation out, more KE in the atmosphere is converted to PE, the reduction in KE prevents any surface warming.
ii) If more GHGs have a cooling effect by radiating solar energy out faster then that height falls, the contraction of the atmosphere gives less radiation out, less KE in the atmosphere is converted to PE, the increase in KE prevents any surface cooling.
iii) If more GHGs have no net effect on radiation in or out then nothing changes and so no surface warming or cooling.
Wikipedia: “Several moons, such as Earth’s moon and the Galilean satellites, have exospheres without a denser atmosphere underneath. Here molecules are ejected from surface rocks and follow independent parabolic trajectories until they collide with the surface. ”
Not quite right Wikipedia, again, those are elliptic orbits. If you throw a ball without any air resistance it would follow an elliptic orbit truncated by contact with the surface. Parabolic obits are exactly at the escape velocity at the closest approach. At faster than escape velocities those are hyperbolic orbits.
The limit as you increase the distance between the foci of an ellipse, when viewed from near one foci, is a parabola, isn’t it?
I think the point that is being missed here is that although the adiabatic loop has a zero effect on net energy flow at equilibrium it can have a non zero effect when the system is in the process of moving from one point of equilibrium to another.
That is implicit in my assertion that an expanded atmosphere changes the relationship between KE and PE.
If the atmosphere expands then the same amount of KE and PE is being cycled over a greater distance so the time delay between energy leaving the surface and arriving back at the surface increases and during that extra time more energy can leak out to space via the diabatic loop.
Thus an expanded and less dense atmosphere will return less KE to the surface after the adjustment process than it was doing before the initial disruption.
That makes sense if one considers extreme scenarios. Substantially contracting an atmosphere to make it more dense would return more KE to the surface and substantially expanding an atmosphere to greatly reduce density would return much less KE to the surface.
Venus gets lots of KE returned to the surface and Mars hardly any.The Moon, none at all.
Jupiter and Saturn as gas giants have more KE returned to their cores from the atmosphere than they receive from solar input.
The fact is that an atmosphere with more GHGs will energise the adiabatic / thermodynamic processes giving a higher atmosphere so the amount of KE being returned to the surface will reduce and it is that reduction of KE to the surface that offsets any additional warming at the surface that would otherwise have occurred from more GHGs.
Perhaps I should explain it this way:
i) The surface actually receives energy from three sources, solar input, DWIR and returning KE.
ii) Solar input comes straight in and goes straight out at equilibrium hence radiative balance high up in the atmosphere.
iii) All else remaining the same any increase in DWIR reaching the surface via the diabatic loop will result in an equal reduction in KE returning to the surface via the adiabatic loop because of atmospheric expansion and increased energy leakage to space.
Of course the position is different if the atmospheric expansion results from more energy circulating through both of the two loops but one can only achieve that from more insolation, more atmospheric mass or a stronger gravitational field.
Just changing composition only involves a shift in the balance between DWIR and returning KE and that in turn is mediated by the KE / PE balance up through the vertical column.
That is why it is wrong to focus on DWIR as a significant driver of surface temperature. Changes in DWIR alone are irrelevant to the temperature that a surface can attain beneath an atmosphere.
A faster adiabatic loop, as provoked by more GHGs, then results in less KE returning to the surface as a result of atmospheric expansion.
So we now have a clear mechanism whereby a slowing down of energy throughput by GHGs can be offset by a speeding up of energy throuhgput by thermodynamics.
The speeding up of the thermodynamic processes within an expanded atmosphere results in a reduction in the amount of KE getting back to the surface via the adiabatic loop.
To summarise.
More GHGs might hold more energy but as a result of their expanding the atmosphere and thereby rendering it less dense on average they also reduce the insulating capacity of the atmosphere to an equal and opposite extent.
Stephen says: “I think the point that is being missed here is that although the adiabatic loop has a zero effect on net energy flow at equilibrium it can have a non zero effect when the system is in the process of moving from one point of equilibrium to another.”
True only in Stephen’s 11:33am thinking/imagination. Stephen must think/imagine it rains in space causing release of latent heat to expand the exosphere but that doesn’t happen in nature.
i) Check
ii) Check, sort of – actually the incoming and outgoing spectrums overlap a bit and ~78 incoming flux density is absorbed in atm. and vice versa.
iii) There is no increased energy leakage from Stephen’s adiabatic loop in nature, the thermals and evap./rain stay in the atm./surface control volume (cv) (that’s why they can be thought of as adiabatic, they are diabatic in cv reality). Only Stephen’s diabatic loop radiation enters&exits the atm./surface control volume balancing the global near surface temperature to Tavg. 288K.
If the exiting global radiation is slowed by any means, then global L&O surface and lower near surface atm. increase in global avg. temperature to compensate while the upper atm. cools to conserve energy in cv so that 239-239=0 is maintained at LTE, and vice versa. The crossover being about 5km altitude at about 600hPa.
Global near surface Tavg. varies, being controlled by 3 constantly varying but reasonably LTE stable fundamental parameters: the solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity. Atm. mass is important only b/c transiently damps response to the varying fundamental parameters.
Modern science correctly summarizes:
More GHGs might hold more energy in lower troposphere but as a result they cool the upper troposphere rendering it less dense on average to conserve energy on an equal and opposite extent.
******
Max – Yes, can define exosphere limit differently.
“True only in Stephen’s 11:33am thinking/imagination. Stephen must think/imagine it rains in space causing release of latent heat to expand the exosphere but that doesn’t happen in nature”
Latent heat is release from around the tropopause and that is quite sufficient.
However the upper atmospheric layers will influence the rate at which it is then transferred to the height at which energy in equals energy out.
“More GHGs might hold more energy in lower troposphere but as a result they cool the upper troposphere rendering it less dense on average to conserve energy on an equal and opposite extent.”
A cooler parcel of air is more dense, not less dense.
The entire tropopause height rises also raising the tropopause. The tropopause then lies at a higher level but retains its original temperature and so energy is lost upwards more efficiently.
It is generally accepted in AGW theory that the whole troposphere warms but that the stratosphere cools. That has never been proved and is now looking unlikey given that the stratosphere is no longer cooling and may be warming despite continuing increases in CO2.
The thermals and the water cycle are part of both loops and so can cross the so called control volume.
The adiabatic portion is the energy left over after thermals and the water cycle have done their work.
That portion will decrease when thermals and the water cycle push higher because more energy will leak upwards.
That decrease reaching the surface offsets any increase in DWIR.
Note that I am only accepting the existence of DWIR for the purpose of showing how it would work.if it existed. Instead I think DWIR and available KE are one and the same, just representing the temperature at any given height.
Stephen: “A cooler parcel of air is more dense, not less dense.”
Yeah thank you, I think a good point, my copy/paste of your summary could be improved, you meant the lower troposphere is less dense, I should have written upper troposphere cooler more dense with more infrared active gas and I see it is better to communicate with Stephen using GHG:
Modern science more correctly summarizes:
More GHGs (Stephen’s term) might hold more energy in lower troposphere but as a result they cool the upper troposphere rendering it more dense on average to conserve energy on an equal and opposite extent.
Stephen: “The thermals and the water cycle are part of both loops and so can cross the so called control volume.”
Can’t cross out to space. This is where it must rain in space in Stephen’s imagination to decrease the DWIR equal and opposite. Since nature has no rain in space, no equal and opposite DWIR decrease exists in nature. The Trenberthian 17&80 stay in the control volume around atm. & surface doing thermal & latent heat pushups=0 balanced LTE.
This means a useful definition of atm. height, the top line around cv, would be the orbital altitude of CERES measuring the 239-239=0 balanced LTE doing the radiative pushups.
“Can’t cross out to space. This is where it must rain in space in Stephen’s imagination to decrease the DWIR equal and opposite”
Why does it need to rain in space?
Adjustments entirely within the atmosphere are all that is needed to equalise energy in with energy out.
And it happens.
“Why does it need to rain in space?”
For the latent heat to leak energy out of control volume at CERES orbit. It doesn’t rain in space, so no latent heat can be leaked out as Stephen writes 3:37pm: “That portion will decrease when thermals and the water cycle push higher because more energy will leak upwards.”
There is no energy leak out to space from Stephen’s adiabatic processes, all stays in control volume. That’s why Stephen can refer to them as adiabatic, and why Trenberthian 17&80 return to surface. The 17&80 flux densities don’t leak out anywhere. Only radiation gets out to the orbit of CERES and 239 radiation departs, equal to the 239 solar radiation in.
“And it happens.”
Only in Stephen’s imagination, not in nature. Doesn’t rain in space and thermals don’t go there either Stephen, none of your adiabatic processes can leak out of control volume, only 239 radiation reaches CERES orbit.
Trick.
I think your concept of control volume is the problem here.
Everything happens within the atmosphere leaving energy out equalling energy in. No need for anything to happen above the point where energy in equals energy out.
When GHGs slow down the transmission of energy through the system (assuming they do) then the extra energy that they retain causes the atmosphere to expand.
The increased height lengthens the time delay for processing energy within the adiabatic loop because thermals and latent heat must go higher before the downward part of the loop can commence which gives more time for energy to move upwards through thermals and latent heat transfer before the adiabatic loop returns KE to the surface.
Both the adiabatic and diabatic loops are separate control volumes but of opposite sign.
Slowing down of energy flow in the diabatic loop from more GHGs adds energy that could potentially warm the surface indirectly by slowing surface emissions upward but the denial of KE back to the surface in the descending adiabatic loop cancels out the effect.
Despite being separate loops they share the upward flow of energy from thermals and latent heat transfer.
The leakage to and fro between the control volumes occurs laterally on the way up through the atmosphere and NOT beyond the point where energy out equals energy in and NOT at the surface.
Unfortunately I think that your reluctance to try and understand is causing you to misunderstand and misrepresent my point however hard I try to reformulate the description for you.
I suspect Stephen means latent and convective transport into the stratosphere when he says they “cross the control volume”, and he is absolutely correct, look at a tall thunderstorm to see an example of both.
Yes Max.
Thermals is another word for convection. The control volume can be ‘crossed’ at any layer boundary within the atmosphere.
“Both the adiabatic and diabatic loops are separate control volumes but of opposite sign…. your reluctance to try and understand …”
Control volumes (cv) accounting for energy flow don’t have inherent “sign” just flux densities flowing in&out of the arbitrary lines drawn – here the orbit of CERES and surface. Stephen’s separate adiabatic cv is entirely within the diabatic cv.
No reluctance to try & understand on my part; I took the time to obtain & hard work to read thru & apply learning from 4 modern expert textbooks on the top post subject. Stephen has apparently not done so, is the one has the reluctance to try & understand.
Energy has to be conserved; that’s the whole point in applying a control volume – controlling for & making sure the analyst adds up all the flows crossing in&out the control volume correctly.
“When GHGs slow down the transmission of energy through the system (assuming they do) then the extra energy that they retain causes the atmosphere to expand.”
There is no “extra energy” being somehow created by GHGs & retained causing atm. expansion; energy is conserved. Constant energy in the LTE diabatic cv. 239-239=0. If lower troposphere warms by energy flux slowing, upper atm. above 600hPa cools exactly equal and opposite; atm. height will be unchanged or what it needs to be for constant gas enthalpy for 239-239=0.
Control volumes work for understanding Konrad’s experiments also.
Max/Stephen – The stratosphere is inside the diabatic cv since stratopause is below the orbit of CERES. See the note about “anvil-shaped” cloud tops at tropopause. The CERES orbit control volume is NOT crossed by thermals or latent heat making it up to stratosphere.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/layers.htm
We never said anything about the CERES orbit, we said the troposphere and stratosphere exhibit some exchange of energy and matter, for the most part it is due to thunderstorms, which are big heat engines cooling the lower atmosphere.
Max 3:25am: “We never said anything about the CERES orbit…”
True, though it is the effective control volume (cv) where the 239 OLR energy goes out, otherwise known as TOA.
Max 10:38: “…convective transport into the stratosphere when he says they “cross the control volume”, and he is absolutely correct..”
No. The thermals can’t cross the TOA cv out to space and depart cooling the surface global Tavg. The thermals cycle in the control volume varying surface T around global Tavg.=288K along with latent heat. Only radiation gets out past cv.
Sure convective transport can get that high moving heat around within cv but can’t cross cv affecting the LTE 239-239 balance.
My point was not everyone uses the same control volume, and if the point where 239 in/out occurs were to be at the tropopause, then matter could and does regularly cross it.
In my case I would completely disagree that there is even a location where there is 239 in, but I agree that there is a 239 out location.
There is a location coinciding with 680~ in on the day side and 239~ out on the day side, and there is also 239 out on the night side.
Well, more like 478~ after albedo on the day side, and it is probably more than 239 out on that side, with less than 239 on the night side.
Nonetheless, you can’t find a location with 239 in/239 out unless you choose to look at the ring of locations where there is actually such a low level of energy reaching the ground, i.e. somewhere in between the poles/day-night terminators. Not a particularly useful metric to work with.
“When GHGs slow down the transmission of energy through the system (assuming they do) then the extra energy that they retain causes the atmosphere to expand.”
“There is no “extra energy” being somehow created by GHGs & retained causing atm. expansion; energy is conserved”
Another ridiculous misinterpretation amongst so many.
The extra energy is not ‘created’. It is an additional accumulation of energy due to increased residence time.
If Trick really has not understood that most basic point from the very beginning then all his comments are a total waste of time.
We are discussing mutiple types of energy flow each varying differently within the atmosphere resulting in TOA balance. That seems to have gone straight over Trick’s head.
Stephen,
In an effort to make my position clearer I have rendered a diagram that extrapolates my two box experiment to an atmosphere with a dry lapse rate of 10C per 1 km. The image can be seen here –
http://tinypic.com/r/6zy1ky/6 (Rog or Tim, It would be a great help if this image could be added inline.)
Two atmospheres are depicted, one with radiative gasses and one without. You will note that incoming SW and outgoing IR are equal for both atmospheres. However for the radiative atmosphere most of the out going IR is being emitted from the mid to upper troposphere, while for the non-radiative atmosphere all IR is emitted from the earth’s surface.
The diagram shows that even though the energy entering and leaving the two model atmospheres is identical, the altitude at which energy enters and exits is of critical importance to atmospheric temperatures.
In the atmosphere with radiative gasses, heated rising air can radiate energy at altitude and consequently lose buoyancy and return to the surface.
In the atmosphere without radiative gasses, heated air cannot lose buoyancy at altitude. Further 25C air rising from the surface simply layers up underneath air of the same temperature that has previously risen to altitude. An air mass at -13C at 3.8 km cannot replace or overturn an airmass at -25 at 5 km as it would not have greater relative buoyancy.
In the diagram five stages of convective collapse are shown in the atmosphere without radiative gasses. As can be seen, as convection is reduced from a strong vertical cycle to a shallow and weak horizontal cycle, average temperatures in the atmosphere increase rapidly. (Atmospheric super heating would soon follow due to the higher equilibrium temperatures reached by N2 and O2 intercepting a very small amount of SW.)
Trick will no doubt point out that the average surface temperature under a non-radiative atmosphere would be lower. Climate “scientists” have calculated that this lower average surface temperature will lead to a lower atmospheric temperature, but this calculation is wrong. Wrong. WRONG. As my two box experiment has shown, the temperature of the stagnating air at altitude in a non-radiative atmosphere is set by surface temperature maximum, not surface temperature average. Maybe that should be in caps…
THE TEMPERATURE OF THE STAGNATING AIR AT ALTITUDE IN A NON-RADIATIVE ATMOSPHERE IS SET BY SURFACE TEMPERATURE MAXIMUM, NOT SURFACE TEMPERATURE AVERAGE.
In an atmosphere with a steep pressure gradient, “cool” air sinks and “hot” air rises. The speed of convection in a diurnal cycle easily overpowers gas conduction and diffusion. This means that the surface is far better at warming the air above it than cooling it. This is what my empirical experiment has clearly shown beyond any reasonable doubt. (Those that doubt this have clearly not replicated the empirical experiment and are therefore being unreasonable 😉 )
Stephen, I understand you believe that the effect of radiative gasses is neutral with regard to atmospheric temperature. This is indeed what I found in previous empirical experiments. In shallow well circulated enclosures containing radiative gases, the IR emitted from energy acquired by conduction easily offsets any warming by thermalisation of intercepted IR. However in taller test enclosures buoyancy and convection come into effect. Convection to altitude can still occur without energy loss at altitude, however deep vertical convective CIRCULATION cannot. Without radiative gases our atmosphere will cook.
The most delicious thing about this is not that the AGW team have overestimated the effect of CO2. No, through their total lack of understanding of fluid mechanics, they have managed to get the SIGN of the effect wrong. CO2 cools our atmosphere. There is no “walk-back” from this. Every activist, journalist, pseudo scientist and politician who has ever voiced support for this hoax is compromised. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
Konrad.
Agreement on most aspects.
In particular my view is that GHGs do indeed (potentially) have a net cooling effect by providing an extra window for energy to radiate out that is not available in a non GHG atmosphere.
Thus a non GHG atmosphere should in theory be hotter rather than cooler than one with GHGs.
Still, there are points of divergence as regards convection and circulation.
A hot surface will cause a lapse rate within an atmosphere constrained by gravity even without GHGs. That heat is what raises the gases off the surface in the first place.
As pressure reduces with height more of the energy content of each molecule will become PE rather than KE and PE is not heat.
Then one has to take one more logical step.
The hotter atmosphere would need to be more vigorous in order to return KE back to the surface on the night side quickly enough to enable the surface on the night side to radiate out as fast as the sun warms the day side.
Only by that means can equilibrium be maintained and a rapid convective circulation would be unavoidable.
It would be shallower convection than in a GHG atmosphere because GHGs try to cause expansion in order to achieve their cooling effect so in that respect you would be right but however shallow the convection the circulation from day side to night side would still be present.
Note though that with or without GHGs it is the configuration of the atmospheric circulation within the available depth of the atmosphere that maintains equilibrium and in doing so it must reduce the net effect of GHGs to zero so even though GHGs try to cool the planet the different circulation prevents them from having any net effect whatever.
It would be just the same but in reverse if GHGs actually tried to warm the planet.
Refer to the planetary gas giants. Heat is determined by mass and gravity alone and not by composition. Even solar input is not essential for the build up of heat within the gaseous core.
Solar input only becomes relevant for a planet with a thin atmosphere around a rock and then the level of solar input determines the height of the atmosphere whilst mass (subjected to insolation) determines the starting temperature at the surface and gravity determines the lapse rate slope required for equilibrium.
GHGs distort the slope away from that set by gravity but the circulation then reconfigures to ensure that on average from surface to top of atmosphere the lapse rate set by gravity is maintained.
An atmosphere with a gravity induced lapse rate of 10C would be shallower than one with a GHG induced lapse rate of 6.5C but if gravity requires 10C then the higher atmosphere resulting from a lapse rate throughout the vertical column at 6.5C would eventually freeze to the surface becase the rate of energy flow upward would exceed that permitted by gravity and mass.
The GHGs at higher than ‘ideal’ levels would allow too much radiation out from those levels.
Hence the circulation MUST increase the overall net lapse rate back to that 10C rate.
So, GHGs hold onto more energy which tries to expand the atmosphere.
More KE is converted to PE within the atmosphere as soon as it tries to expand but the surface temperature remains the same because the reduction in KE would offset any DWIR from the GHG molecules.
If expansion were to occur then GHGs would be radiating out at heights which are inconsistent with maintenance of the temperature set by mass, gravity and the available solar input.
Unless something else changes those higher up GHGs would destroy the energy balance at top of atmosphere.
The global air circulation changes (after a short time lag) to contract the atmosphere again and bring those GHGs back to the ‘correct’ height.
As soon as GHGs try to expand the atmosphere and transmit too much radiation to space the adiabatic loop slows down because the surface is being denied that extra energy in those GHG molecules.
That means a less vigorous convection and water cycle which offsets the tendency to expansion caused by the presence of more GHGs.
So there is one control system at top of atmophere involving mass, gravity and insolation which balances out to zero at equilibrium.
Then there is another control system within the atmosphere involving the vigour of the adiabatic loop which is of opposite sign and which can adjust the relationship between KE and PE in the atmosphere to offset the effects of any imbalance that would otherwise develop at the top of the atmosphere as a result of more GHGs.
Stephen 9:19am: “The extra energy is not ‘created’. It is an additional accumulation of energy due to increased residence time.”
Great, Stephen makes progress again, he should guard against backsliding. As I wrote, the energy from additional infrared active gas slowing the cooling of the near surface atm. is not created, this existing energy accumulates from the equal and opposite cooling of the upper atm. above 600hPa. Energy is conserved.
“If Trick really has not understood that most basic point from the very beginning then all his comments are a total waste of time.”
Not given evidence of Stephen’s making such great progress in understanding. Plus I’ve dug deeper into this stuff than I expected and had some fun.
“We are discussing multiple types of energy flow each varying differently within the atmosphere resulting in TOA balance. That seems to have gone straight over Trick’s head.”
This is great progress Stephen, now you comprehend the TOA balance too and that flows are varying WITHIN the atm. Understanding 239-239=0 is progress. Stephen’s previous mass, insolation and gravity being constant, unvarying holding Tavg. constant that went right over Trick’s head is now replaced as Stephen’s understanding makes progress toward seeing the 3 fundamental parameters of emissivity, insolation, and albedo to understand the “…multiple types of energy flow each varying differently within the atmosphere resulting in TOA balance”.
Stephen’s writing “..each varying differently within the atmosphere…” is evidence he replaces his previous imagination of latent heat released to space with rain in space and thermals crossing out to space cooling the surface. Good work Stephen.
Stephen now agrees Stephen’s adiabatic processes stay WITHIN the atm. and only Stephen’s diabatic processes cross the control volume in from space & out to space. 239-239=0 balanced LTE.
Stephen,
I believe we are both in agreement that radiative gasses cannot cause warming. On the basis of empirical results I have concluded that the net effect of radiative gasses is cooling. However what are normally referred to as non-radiative gasses do absorb and emit very small amounts of IR. Even if the effect of radiative gasses was neutral, the effect of “non-radiative gasses” would be far higher equilibrium temperatures, super heating and loss of atmosphere.
For alternate confirmation of my conclusions, look around our solar system. Is there any planet or moon that retains an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gasses?
I would again urge you to build and run the two box experiment. It is “robust” (TM- climate science). The actual temperature of the heating and cooling elements is unimportant. Quality of insulation is a factor, but most important is to get the heating and cooling tubes as flat as possible to the upper and lower internal surfaces of the enclosures. Using 1C and 60C water in the cooling and heating tubes I found the temperature of box 2 almost double box 1 when the cooling tubes were placed at the same height as the heating tubes.
The AGW team have got it wrong. Very, very wrong.
Has anyone looked at this from Dr Roy Spencer (1/1/2013)?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Following that, Lubos Motl came out in support but with his own comments.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/greenhouse-effect-doesnt-contradict-any.html
Quoting just numbered comment 6 of 6 from Motl here:
The existence of the lapse rate requires the greenhouse effect by itself.
In the previous points, I suggested the point that the lapse rate is a necessary condition for the asymmetries that allow the greenhouse effect to operate. Once the greenhouse effect operates, it increases the insulation of the surface which means that the lapse rate becomes even larger. But the opposite causal relationship holds, too. There wouldn’t be any lapse rate to start with – no cooling with the altitude – if there were no greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) in the atmosphere. The lapse rate is close to the adiabatic one which arises because the colder air at higher altitudes is heavier (at the same pressure) so it drops down, shrinks (because the pressure is higher at lower attitudes), and heats up (squeezing a gas makes it hotter). But you see that this mechanism only works if the air at higher altitudes is actually colder then the air near the surface – and the greenhouse-effect-induced heating from the surface up is a necessary condition.
As a final general point he says:
” If the greenhouse effect were amplified by a brutal multiplicative coefficient, this amplification would probably apply to the greenhouse effect caused by water, too. But the bare greenhouse effect caused by the actual water vapor in the atmosphere may be shown to be close to 30 °C and we may empirically exclude that the greenhouse effect from water adds 100 or 150 °C. So we may apparently rule out a 3-fold or 5-fold amplification of the CO2 greenhouse effect, too.”
Konrad.
My point was that if a non GHG atmosphere were to hold on to its atmosphere then it could only do so in the way I suggested. The necessary heat transfers being achieved by conduction from surface to air and back again rather than via IR.
I am open to the possibility that the necessary speed of convection and circulation might not be achievable with the result that the atmosphere could heat up to a point where it is lost.
After all, a fast enough speed of convection and circulation could itself result in gases exceeding escape velocity.
Apart from that we appear to be in agreement.
The absence of any example of a body with non radiative gases only would most likely be a result of the widespread nature of radiative gases throughout the universe.
I do not dispute your findings from your experiment but it does not adequately reflect the circulation that develops around a rotating sphere, open to space, with an energy input from a point source of light.
But then it doesn’t need to in order make the basic point.
Trick.
That is the most incredible use of straw man arguments and patronising language that I have ever come across.
Apparently Lubos Motl said:
“and the greenhouse-effect-induced heating from the surface up is a necessary condition.”
No it isn’t. Solar heating of the surface and conduction is enough.
Unless he concedes that the greenhouse effect is gravity and pressure induced in which case that would be a necessary condition.
Stephen 2:00pm – I know your progress on radiation budget is painful, difficult, halting. But you demonstrate you can do it! Energy is conserved in cv; accumulated from elsewhere in cv as you write, energy is not created in cv.
I tried looking up a 1960’s text book but my library syndicate doesn’t have any that I can find. I did find a reference on atm. radiation from 1960 and even one from 1900, So they knew about atm. convection, conduction AND radiation long ago.
Still wondering if you think this 239-239=0 location exists, rather than just being an unrealistic average.
Konrad
Your explanation of the difference in temperature in the two box experiment is probably correct i.e. box 2 is hotter because convection is inhibited. You might want to demonstrate that by introducing flow meters in the experiment, maybe multi axis meters to measure the flow in the horizontal and vertical planes.
Max 1/2 6:19pm: “Still wondering…”
The concept of averaging is non-trivial. Think of what CERES must actually measure as it orbits on whatever the sampling rate it uses. A varying signal. Not constant 239.
So to reduce the sampled data to temporal and spatial one number 239 needs a critical, informed look at exactly how to do it. I do not know the details nor do I have the interest to dig into them w/o oh, say $1Mln from NSF that allows the hire of two grad. assistants, ha. Someone already did the work.
The unqualified avg. of a set of physical variables can be misleading, if not outright dangerous, I wrote about before based on shoe sizes. The avg. shoe size may not fit one foot in the entire mall yet shoes are sold pre-made profitably.
There are an infinite number of possible avg.s, not all of them, nor indeed any of them, may be of any use whatsoever. There is also median. And most probable value (mode) defined as the value that occurs most often. So there are 3 ways of characterizing a set of numbers by a single number. But this hardly scratches the surface of the universe of avg.s – arithmetic, geometric, weighted, eigenvalue…
I could go further – Stephen will write I’m in evasion or patronizing if I do more science he won’t follow.
Max 1/2 6:52am: “In my case I would completely disagree that there is even a location where there is 239 in, but I agree that there is a 239 out location. There is a location coinciding with 680~ in on the day side and 239~ out on the day side, and there is also 239 out on the night side.”
I would say there are near infinite locations sampled by CERES creating “disks full of data”. There has to be some trust they reduced the data to 239-239=0 correctly if you don’t want to do the work yourself. The CERES science seems to be correct to other observations so I see no useful need to question the 239-239=0 in order to form a science based view of atm. conduction, convection, and radiation heat transfer nature.
New post from Joe Postma discusses the lapse rate and related matters.
My point, Trick, is that there is no actual location where 239 in/239 out is found, that is only an artifact of the averaging method chosen, not a real aspect of the system.
Eilert says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
—————————————————
Eilert,
Some of the suggested equipment may be out of my price range, and it should be noted that the experiment is designed to be easily replicated by others. Flows within the boxes can however be studied to some extent by placement of the thermocouples. My latest variant of the experiment can be seen here –
http://tinypic.com/r/15n0xuf/6
Cooling tubes at ground level and at altitude have been combined into the same box, with valves to vary the flow between each level. Two thermometer probes are now used and this to some extent allows the changes in flow to be “observed”. It should be noted that the flow speeds of the air are very slow as the vertical pressure gradient in the box is slight, meaning any flow meter to observe the flow of air would have to be extraordinarily sensitive.
In this smaller version of the experiment (volume 200 x 200 x 75mm) I have found that temperature equalisation in the gas volume due to conduction and diffusion to be far greater than the larger version. The basic result is as before, with cooling at altitude causing a lower average temperature. The difference in absolute temperatures between the two different sized experiments indicates that the basic physical principle can be safely extrapolated to the real atmosphere. The physics involved work better as scale increases. Conduction and diffusion between air masses would be negligible in the full scale atmosphere.
This experiment essentially shows that the removal of cooling at altitude stalls convective circulation in a gas column heated from the base. When convection stalls, temperatures increase in the gas column. The temperature of Earth’s atmosphere would not be “33C cooler” without radiative gases. It would in fact be dramatically hotter.
Conductive heating at the base of a gas column in a gravity field can quickly cause energy to enter the gas column through convection. The mistake the AGW team have made is believing that conductive cooling at the base of a gas column in a gravity field has a similar effect. It does not. Increased surface radiative cooling will not replace cooling at altitude. Without radiative cooling at altitude, atmospheric temperatures will increase. AGW is therefore physically impossible on this planet.
Konrad 2:48am: “…the basic physical principle can be safely extrapolated to the real atmosphere.”
If so, then two properly constructed and calibrated radiometers placed inside at the base of your boxes – one looking up and one looking down – would need to show the same scaled flux density readings for UWIR and DWIR as NOAA ESRL measures in the real atmosphere. This should be rather trivially easy to add to your experiments.
It is also trivially easy to show in theory the radiometers properly constructed and calibrated when added to your experiments will not scale to read the same as in nature’s real atmosphere as you describe your experimental results.
Basically because your assertion “Increased surface radiative cooling will not replace cooling at altitude. Without radiative cooling at altitude, atmospheric temperatures will increase.” would violate conservation of energy in the real earth system.
Small note, there is only one flux density reading, the UWIR-DWIR one. Taking only one part of the measurement is misleading and inaccurate, using those values on their own generally leads to unphysical conclusions.
It occurs to me that the slope of the actual lapse in so far as it diverges from the ideal lapse rate set by gravity in one layer would not need to be compensated for by an equal and opposite distortion in the other direction in another layer if the affected layer expands instead.
So if the actual lapse rate in the troposphere is reduced to 6.5C instead of 10C by the presence of water vapour then the thermal effect would be offset by the tropopause height being higher than it otherwise would have been.
The reason being that it is density that affects the throughput of energy and an expanded atmosphere is a less dense atmosphere which lets energy flow through faster.
So if water vapour reduces the troposphere lapse rate from 10C to 6.5C that slowing down of energy throughput results in a higher, less dense troposphere than would otherwise have been the case and the less dense troposphere then allows energy through faster to offset the thermal effect of the water vapour.
So, my original contention was correct in principle in that the system has to compensate for divergences from the ideal lapse rate if an atmosphere is to be retained but the appropriate adjustment is made by altering the density of the affected layer through expansion rather than by having an adjustment in another layer.
The Ideal Gas Law controls the rate of energy throughput and not radiative physics.
The less dense layer would also allow a freer convective circulation because it would be less viscous than a denser atmosphere and would also increase the speed and efficiency of our water cycle.
I see while I was at another hockey game (no relation to climate hockey), Stephen’s imagination is boundless at 4:30am, unhindered and unlimited by any innate need to show conforming 1st law and 2nd law in nature.
Although it is a mistake to ignore the latent heat and thermal convective processes in the atm. as in Stephen’s top post, Stephen’s imagination just sweeps away the 1st law and creates energy out of nothing to speed up these processes to exactly eliminate natural emissivity effects in the atm.
The natural emissivity of the atm. slows the cooling of the near surface atm. which must mean above a certain pressure altitude (~600hPa) the atm. cools faster – equally and opposite starved of the energy from below to conform to 1st law. In nature, any speed up of latent heat and thermal convective processes near the surface is exactly offset by their slow down above about 600 hPa to conform to 1st law.
There is no net speed up of these processes in accordance with 1st law since energy cannot be created out of nothing. I have learned & now know to expect this law doesn’t hinder Stephen’s robust imagination in the least.
Sometimes my basic attempts to discuss science principle is just patronizing and evading in Stephen’s imagination. Imagining things is not entirely bad practice though, some imagination worked wonders for the physics world – when it was eventually shown consistent with nature’s laws.
Trick says:
January 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm
—————————————————
Trick,
As I have pointed out numerous times before, the experiment runs entirely on conduction and convection. Radiation plays no significant role in the results of the experiment, so it would be entirely pointless to include internal measurement of IR. My comment regarding extrapolation to the real atmosphere related to conductive equalisation and diffusion, as you are well aware.
As to conservation of energy, the results of the experiment violate no laws. An atmosphere without radiative gasses will simply be radiating less energy to space and dramatically increase in temperature.
The experiment simply covers the basic physics that the AGW team ignored. The gasses in our atmosphere move. This has not been correctly modelled in the AGW team flux calculations.
What can be learnt from this empirical experiment –
1. For an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient receiving energy input near the surface, energy loss at altitude is required for continued convective circulation. (Radiative gasses are the only mechanism for this in Earth’s atmosphere)
2. For an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient receiving energy input near the surface, stagnation of vertical convective circulation results in increasing atmospheric temperatures.
3. For an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient, conductive and convective heating of the atmosphere is driven by surface temperature maximum, not surface temperature average.
4. Even though the surface under an atmosphere with no radiative gasses may have a lower average surface temperature, that atmosphere will be far hotter than and atmosphere containing radiative gasses.
5. Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere by allowing energy loss to space at altitude. AGW is physically impossible.
It is really very basic physics. A gas column with a vertical pressure gradient with separated zones of heating and cooling at same level at the base runs hotter than a column with a zone of cooling higher than the zone of heating.
All the AGW team radiative flux equations between the surface and atmosphere and different levels of the atmosphere are totally irrelevant. They did not properly model the physical transport of energy by convective circulation.
Another ‘ding’ moment.
The rate of cooling that an atmosphere needs to achieve in order to match energy in with energy out at top of atmosphere is not tied to the DALR either. The ideal lapse rate is different again to that.
It is clear that radiative characteristics do affect the actual lapse rate so it must follow that ANY radiative ability will distort the actual lapse rate away from the ideal one.
That even applies to Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen, miniscule though the distorion would be.
So removing ALL radiative ability gives us the true ideal lapse rate set by mass, gravity and insolation alone. Has that ever been quantified ?
That ideal lapse rate is never seen in reality because all mass has some radiative ability.
Therefore the height of the atmosphere up through the vertical column is not just dependent on the energy coming in from sources external to the atmosphere such as solar and geothermal but is also dependent on radiative characteristics.
It is established science that it is atmospheric density that controls the surface temperature needed to arrange that energy in equals energy out.
It is an obvious fact that the total number of molecules (or amount of mass) does not change when an atmosphere expands.
Thus expansion reduces density which increases the ease with which energy can move up the column by whatever means.
The decrease in resistance from the lower density is all very well but in the end the energy still has to get past the same amount of mass so overall the surface temperature must stay the same.
The reduction in density is local to each height but there is then more height for the energy to traverse and so the net thermal result of of those density reductions within the vertical column (caused by radiative characteristics) at top of atmosphere and at the surface is zero. The only change is within the atmsphere itself.
Only the slope of the actual lapse rate changes as a result of adding radiative characteristics to an atmosphere that has no radiative ability at all.
Nothing else.
The thermal effect of the change in the slope is completely offset by the change in total atmospheric depth. The slope changes but so does the distance that it has to traverse.
The error to date has been that no one has ever considered the concept of an adiabatic lapse rate as it would be in the complete absence of any radiative ability for the constituent molecules. It has not been considered because no such molecules exist.
Until now that concept has never been needed for any specific purpose but it should have popped into the mind of whoever it was that first proposed a net thermal effect from more GHGs and all his or her scientifically qualified successors.
They never stopped to think how radiative characteristics could have a net thermal effect for an atmosphere around a rocky planet when they never did for gas clouds in space, sun formation and planetary gas giants.
.
Konrad:
You said:
“1. For an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient receiving energy input near the surface, energy loss at altitude is required for continued convective circulation”.
That could be made to square with my contentions if one regards energy ‘loss’ as referring to KE loss because within a gravitational field KE is converted to PE with height.
The rest of your reply to Trick is just right. Thanks.
Simplifying to an extreme:
Radiative characteristics of constituent molecules in an atmosphere affect both the slope of the actual lapse rate so that it moves away from the ideal lapse rate set by gravity but additionally affect the height of the atmosphere so that the change in distance that the lapse rate traverses moves the system as a whole back to the ideal lapse rate set by gravity for a self cancelling effect.
The mechanical process that does the work is convective ascent and descent which is stimulated by GHGs and stimulates the rise in the height of the affected layer so as to achieve self correction.
Thus the tropopause is higher than it would be without water vapour.
The stratopause is higher than it would be without ozone.
The entire atmosphere is higher than it would be if the constituent gases had no radiative ability at all.
Konrad 8:43pm: “Trick, As I have pointed out numerous times before, the experiment runs entirely on conduction and convection. Radiation plays no significant role…”
Konrad continues: “What can be learnt from this empirical experiment….Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere.”
Stephen 9:31am: “..your reply to Trick is just right. Thanks.”
Anyone else see an issue of science based logic in Konrad’s post and Stephen’s response?
NB: Thanks and congrat.s to tallbloke on the blog success and science focus, I’ve learned a lot researching where some comments fall off from atm. text books when I take time to research the experts that preceded & adopt the 1st principle science side of the debate in postings and comments.
Was at a party the other night, guy next to me mentions climate and I roll my eyes. So he whips out his iPhone, taps a couple times and shows me the weather displayed at his back yard weather station at the moment. On a national map! He named his weather station after the local grass strip airport which only has a wind sock.
“Radiative characteristics of constituent molecules in an atmosphere affect both the slope of the actual lapse rate so that it moves away from the ideal lapse rate set by gravity …”
Hi Stephen,
One question, why do you feel such effects as GHGs move the lapse away from the ideal lapse rate and not away from the zero isothermal lapse rate? Seems you have it backwards. I thought that question of whether a GHG-less atmosphere would organize as no lapse at all or a lapse close to the DALR was answered by br1 and ferd and myself quite a while ago with detailed simulations.
I also thought we had determined that lapse rates are a poor metric because they are altitude dependent while temperatures across differences in pressure levels stays constant as long as you don’t change the atmosphere’s component mixed to any great degree.
Try thinking of what happens to temperatures as you “fluff up” the atmosphere during the daytime. The difference in temperatures across pressure levels do not change so the lapse rates don’t change and you get a horizontal shift with no slope change when you look at radiosonde skew-T charts each day and night. That is what NOAAs bi-daily graphs show here every twice a day.
So, can just small change in co2 concentration, like doubling it from 0.0004 to 0.0008 alter the horizontal position on such skew-T graphs? No, not without 1] a constant increase in solar input or 2] a permanent change in the albedo or 3] a permanent change in the surface’s effective emissivity. It takes more absorbed energy input to do that so toss the “back radiation”, that is not new and constant energy input. I thought we were settling into these realizations and that is why the temperatures have not budged over the last seventeen years.
Hi wayne.
I can’t envisage an isothermal atmosphere if pressure reduces with height such that KE gets converted to PE as one goes up.
Lapse rates are a good enough metric because the actual lapse rate as opposed to the ideal lapse rate set by gravity diverges from the latter as a result of composition but at the same time the affected layer expands which reduces density so as to offset the effect on energy throughput caused by the composition.
When one fluffs up the atmosphere there is still a lapse rate but it is less than the ideal lapse rate because the composition is smearing the available energy across a greater distance (due to expansion) so at the same time density becomes less so that the thermal effect is negated.
It is true that an atmosphere with no radiative capability at all would be different from the DALR because in calculating the DALR one is only removing the effects of water vapour.
That still leaves residual radiative capability for everything else including CO2,Nitrogen and Oxygen because all mass has some radiative capability.
The ideal lapse rate set by gravity after ALL radiative capability has been stripped out would be even steeper than the DALR.
However the atmosphere would also be much shallower with no radiative means to fluff it up.
So you would have a hotter shallower atmosphere with a very steep lapse rate requiring vigorous convection and circulation to regulate the temperatures of day side and night side.
All that radiative characteristics do is fluff up the atmosphere so that a less steep lapse rate is required for equilibrium.
A fluffed up atmosphere being less dense allows energy through faster but because he energy has further to travel to the higher top the net effect on temperature at the surface is zero.
It is different if one changes solar input, atmospheric mass or the gravitational field.
Those changes make more total energy available whereas GHGs do not. So in that case the expansion and increase in height can be accompanied by a lapse rate slope that does not change and then one can have a higher surface temperature too.
The day side scenario does involve more energy input from the sun as it progresses across the sky to noon so that is extra energy coming in and can raise the height of the atmosphere, raise the surface temperature and maintain the same lapse rate slope all at the same time.
GHGs cannot do that.When they fluff up the atmosphere the slope changes instead of the surface temperature rising.
“So you would have a hotter shallower atmosphere with a very steep lapse rate requiring vigorous convection and circulation to regulate the temperatures of day side and night side.”
I should have said ‘potentially hotter’
In fact if the circulation were to be successful in maintaining equilibrium then it need be no hotter.
There would be more energy in a smaller space but the steeper lapse rate takes care of that.
Trick says:
January 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Konrad 8:43pm: “Trick, As I have pointed out numerous times before, the experiment runs entirely on conduction and convection. Radiation plays no significant role…”
Konrad continues: “What can be learnt from this empirical experiment….Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere.”
—————————————————————–
Trick,
A trick with cut and paste and semantics? That does not even warrant a “nice try” 😉
There is no failure of logic. An experiment that does not use radiation can quite easily show the importance of radiative cooling at altitude. All that matters here is that some mechanism of changing the height of energy loss in the gas column being tested.
There is no way around this, Trick. Your AGW team calculations have not correctly calculated the role of convective circulation or the mechanisms that drive it.
The failures in basic physics made by the AGW team include –
1.Without a mechanism for losing energy to space at altitude, convective circulation stalls in an atmosphere heated near the surface. Heated gasses that have convected to altitude have no way of returning to the surface.
2. The transfer of energy into the atmosphere from the surface by the physical movement of gasses cannot by calculated by simple linear flux calculations.
3. In an atmosphere in which heated gasses can rise from the surface but full convective CIRCULATION has stalled, the temperature of those gasses is set by surface temperature maximum not surface temperature average. It does not matter that the surface temperature minimum under a non radiative atmosphere would be colder at night than under the present atmosphere.
The tropopause is the level below which all strong vertical convective circulation occurs. The tropopause is also the level below which of the significant radiative gas H2O is present in the atmosphere. Radiative gasses are vital for continued convective circulation. My experiment shows what happens to an atmosphere heated near the surface when convection stalls. It cooks. Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere.
Konrad 1:14am: “My experiment shows what happens to an atmosphere…”
Respectfully no, Konrad. Your experiment is not an atm., not even close. Without any measurement of radiation, your experiment is not shown to scale up to simulate an atmosphere. You thus draw incorrect conclusions that violate 1st law for earth system. As you point out: “…the experiment runs entirely on conduction and convection. Radiation plays no significant role…”
Correct 1st principle physics of radiation in atm. proves radiation’s significant role in driving the earth system global near surface avg. atm. temperature to ~288K by 1st law energy balance including heat transfer by convection, conduction and radiation conforming with 2nd law and ideal gas law already discussed in this thread.
No, Trick, running back to useless AGW radiative flux calculations will not work. Remember several threads ago when for all your AGW hoax era texts you could not answer which box got hotter? That’s because these type of calculations cannot answer the question. You could not work it out. I have not forgotten.
My experiment correctly models what happens to an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient, heated near the surface, when the hight of cooling is changed. Your AGW “physics” gets the wrong answer. If your “1st principal” physics can’t answer what is happening to create the significant temperature differential between the boxes, what hope is there for it correctly answering what would happen if radiative gasses were removed from the atmospere?
One of the joys of this is that the AGW team cannot slink back and cover up this mistake. Sceptics will never forgive and the internet will never forget.
Konrad 4:54am: “Remember several threads ago when for all your AGW hoax era texts you could not answer which box got hotter?”
I do remember and, after I asked, Konrad refused to publish a measurement of the needed flux density numbers . Konrad refused again in this thread. Konrad doesn’t even know what the fluxes are! Therefore even Konrad couldn’t predict which one gets hotter at the T measurement point.
“…useless AGW radiative flux calculations…”
Which exactly are the useless AGW ones vs. the useful regular ones? Be specific. Use math.
“My experiment correctly models what happens to an atmosphere…”
True if & only if the incoming SW and outgoing surface LW energy flux density numbers and certain other parameters roughly match those of the atm. system you are modeling. You haven’t even measured the fluxes when it is trivially easy and inexpensive to do so. Once you do, it will be trivially easy to predict the hotter box and I can predict the fluxes won’t match the earth system flux. Mostly since the earth system is in radiative only space and Konrad’s experiment resides in a conductive, convective, radiation bath.
There is no “slinking back” (Konrad term) ever needed when the correct 1st principle physics is used: Correct 1st principle physics of radiation in atm. proves radiation’s significant role in driving the earth system global near surface avg. atm. temperature to ~288K by 1st law energy balance including heat transfer by convection, conduction and radiation conforming with 2nd law and ideal gas law already discussed in this thread.
Any correct analogue experiment would do exactly the same.
“…what hope is there for it correctly answering what would happen if radiative gasses were removed from the atmosphere?”
A reasonably good one if just set the emissivity of atm. math hypothetically to 0 instantly. Of course then the sun is hypothetically 0, so good luck with LTE on that one as the world turns.
The atm. emissivity means not as much furnace cost in winter. And a little more A/C cost in day in summer. Your experiments can’t make that bill reality go away.
How is that in any way “reasonable” or “good”, if everything can be “reasonably” taken to emit IR at some non-zero temperature?
Lack of atmosphere would mean more cooling and more heating as the planet tended more towards more lunar extremes.
The atmosphere reduces those swings, raising the average, nothing can make that reality go away.
Max! “How is that in any way “reasonable” or “good”, if everything can be “reasonably” taken to emit IR at some non-zero temperature?”
Because of being unreasonable in atm. emissivity set = 0. Of course if atm. emissivity really was hypothetically = 0, we reasonably can see what would hypothetically happen, the eqn.s tell us. Just don’t go there if it bothers you. I can see a lot of folks are bothered on this subject, just skip over that page in the text then.
Emissivity=0 is more unphysical than emissivity=1 isn’t it?
[Reply] At any temperature above -273C – yes.
And all temperatures everywhere are >0K. That’s a whole ‘nuther debate not for whether it is a mistake to ignore adiabatic processes.
Max – I’d say give or take. Can emissivity in any way ever be >1? Careful, trick question.
Some have trouble with zero net infrared flux, I don’t, ESRL doesn’t appear to:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=sxf&date=2013-01-01&p9=rnir
But I wouldn’t call that emissivity = 0 either.
Perhaps if you defined it in some way which wouldn’t immediately suggest a perpetual motion machine, but that’s even less relevant to this discussion than any comment I’ve made, isn’t it?
As for a hypothetical atmosphere with emissivity of 0, my brain can’t help but chuckle and place it in the science fiction section, fun to think about, might even get a neat story if you pass the idea along to Baxter, but as it has no connection to reality, there is no use examining it as anything but a cautionary tale: “here be dragons”, roughly.
Can emissivity be Cthulhu? Doesn’t matter.
wayne – Very good. ROFLMAO. What do you think happened? Expiry end of 2012?
A bird sitting on it, sleeping from 8pm to 8am? Exactly? Maybe maintenance? Loss of power, internet connection? Did they write it up in their problem log? Maybe it was me sticking my gum on it, to see if you were paying attention? Went off line to New Year’s eve party? What? A hat tip to the best creative excuse.
Wait, I got it. This instrument while browsing TB site finally read & learned the speeding up of Stephen’s adiabatic processes to exactly cancel itself to 0 W/m^2. Then it saw the light at 8am.
Nice catch. Post of my day honors to wayne.
“wayne – Very good. ROFLMAO. What do you think happened? ” ~Trick
Nothing happened, many nights are like that… it was cloudy.
Poke around that service: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html . Pick just “net infrared” so the scale doesn’t get so squashed. Try summers, winters, in the desert, at high latitudes… it’s amazing how consistent they all are. Yeah, they all drop near or at zero when the clouds roll in but after viewing a big handful you just can’t miss that ~66 w/m2 upper limit during the nights and that during daytime near noon it doesn’t get higher than two, rarely three, times that 66 no matter what the temperatures or seasons are. Surprising. 🙂
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2013-01-01&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p16=at Same day at Montana site.
I don’t like doing just the net infrared though, but if you want to see what is really interesting, plot just the downwelling infrared and compare it across various places/dates/times, I pointed that out in one of these threads a week or two ago I think.
This thread, last week: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/#comment-39469
Trick says:
January 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Konrad 4:54am: “Remember several threads ago when for all your AGW hoax era texts you could not answer which box got hotter?”
I do remember and, after I asked, Konrad refused to publish a measurement of the needed flux density numbers . Konrad refused again in this thread. Konrad doesn’t even know what the fluxes are! Therefore even Konrad couldn’t predict which one gets hotter at the T measurement point.
“…useless AGW radiative flux calculations…”
Which exactly are the useless AGW ones vs. the useful regular ones? Be specific. Use math.
——————————————————————————-
Trick,
That was the trick, you didn’t need math and you didn’t need to know the fluxes to see the correct answer.
You mentioned the SR71 earlier on the thread. It was often said of Kelly Johnston that he could “see the air”.
You were shown this http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg You were told the size of the insulated boxes, the flow rates for the heating and cooling water and the temperature of the heating and cooling water.
You should have been able to”see” this http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
Which box has the higher average temperature?
You talk about radiation being 1st principle physics with regard to energy transfer, yet highschool student are taught conduction, convection then radiation. If I had asked a highschool science student who had not yet been exposed to the AGW dogma, they would have been able to get the right answer.
Box 2 shows what happens to temperatures in a gas column with a vertical pressure gradient when convective circulation stalls. Convective circulation in our atmosphere requires energy loss to space at altitude. The only mechanism for energy loss to space from our atmosphere is IR from radiative gasses, for the most part H2O.
The evidence for the true role of radiative gasses is clear from the tropopause.
Where does all the radiative H20 exist in our atmosphere? Below the tropopause.
Where does all the strong vertical convective circulation occur? Below the tropopause.
Where does the lapse rate reverse and convection cease? Above the tropopause.
You and the AGW team have simply incorrectly calculated the role of convective circulation on tropospheric temperatures and the role of radiative gasses in convective circulation.
Konrad 11:46pm: “Trick, That was the trick, you didn’t need math…”
“Which box has the higher average temperature?”
Use units of W/m^2. Set up Konrad 2 box experiment, wait for LTE. Control for & measure all fluxes.
Box “A” at 50in – 50out = 0 LTE
Box “B” at 51in – 51out = 0 LTE
Box B has higher average temperature. I don’t even know which coil is where!
No tricks, just 1st law. Works.
Here is a good reason why
Snow
Snow T cm 0.51 cm 28.70 cm (1960)
Month to date snowfall T 0.2
Since 1 July snowfall 13.8 17.1
Snow Depth 10.16 cm
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFSD/2013/1/1/DailyHistory.html
wayne 10:48pm: “…it was cloudy.”
Admittedly I’ve looked at only a few traces, the clouds go by much more randomly in those I’ve seen. Hard to believe exactly 0 W/m^2 cloud train went by from almost exactly 8pm to exactly 8am. I should take my own advice and drop in on an ESRL radiometer engineer for a day and let him talk my ear off about the beasts and the system. Then you guys would have to suffer a burst of posts. LOL.
That 0 is suspicious, look at Goodwin Creek, MS. If I was working with an op amp looking at that trace, I’d be saying dang I saturated the op amp again. Gotta’ go adjust the range.
How about a snow storm in SD covering it up? Do they control for that? Then exactly 8:00 1st shift maint. truck comes by and dusts them off? Even on Jan. 1? OT or dedicated ESRL employee?
Exactly 8am is hard to buy for end of cloud train – coming back in service by a human seems far more likely. But I am guessing.
Incidentally if that is true it implies some data is passing through a snow blanket although internal equipment defects[1] might dominate. The full data file does include a few parameters about equipment.
1. Design perspective, not faults.
Just figured something out: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2013-01-01&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p9=rnir
Look at the spots where downwelling and upwelling cross.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=sxf&date=2013-01-02&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p9=rnir
Yep, infrared net is capped at 0 because upwelling isn’t measured, it’s just calculated from the air temperature and subtracted from downwelling.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=sxf&date=2013-01-02&p6=upir&p16=at
Can someone else run a couple numbers on there to see what I’m screwing up?
The temperatures and upwelling IR numbers I’m getting suggest emissivity over 1 in some places.
4 Celsius should peak at 334 W/m^2 right?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=gwn&date=2012-12-28&p6=upir&p16=at
Parts of that have 4 Celsius temperatures (277.15 K) emitting 335+ W/m^2 up?
Trick says:
January 7, 2013 at 12:17 am
———————————————————-
Trick,
your “math” indicates that you are still not getting it.
When the boxes reach equilibrium temperature, the cold water flowing out of box 1 will be warmer than the cold water flowing out of box 2. The hot water flowing out of box 1 will be cooler than the hot water flowing out of box 2. At equilibrium the energy flow into and out of box 1 is greater than that flowing into and out of box 2. Your numbers appear to indicate the opposite.
For a radiative atmosphere with strong vertical convection, the energy flow through the atmosphere will be far higher than the energy flow through a non radiative atmosphere in which convection is stalled. The non radiative atmosphere will still reach a higher average temperature.
The AGW team calculations, besides not properly modelling the physical movement of gas in the atmosphere, appear to have made the mistake of assuming that conductive heating of the atmosphere will be driven by surface temperature average. The temperature of air rising to altitude is instead driven by surface temperature maximum.
The land surface temperature maximum under a non radiative atmosphere will still be as high as that under a radiative atmosphere. It does not matter that surface temperature minimum under a non radiative atmosphere would be lower. This will have almost no effect on atmospheric temperatures. Low level temperature inversion and ground friction will limit the ability of a cool surface to cool the atmosphere to the slow speed of gas conduction. If this were not so, New Zealand vineyards would not be able to save their grapes from radiative frost by using helicopters to break up the inversion layer.
Max 10:12pm responding to can emissivity be >1: “Perhaps if you defined it in some way which wouldn’t immediately suggest a perpetual motion machine.”
I should have written common definition of BB emissivity. Yes, less relevant unless…
Applying for grad. study in meteorology or atm. radiation, they might ask you this question on admission test b/c they already know the reg. undergrad.s (that don’t read TB site) are brainwashed completely that BB emissivity has to be considered equal or less than 1.
If asked if emissivity of a body can be greater than 1, you should immediately respond: “Of course”. In cthulhu for extra credit. This may save your life and that of others.
A fairly tough Prof., set his grad. meteorology students to calculating emissivities of small particles at IR wavelengths, to their horror and dismay obtaining values greater than 1. Was hard to tell him their answers.
Here’s the deal. The defn. of a BB being one that absorbs all radiation incident on it contains a trap for the unwary (some of those unwary’s may be found on the emissivity thread). Notions about radiation being incident on bodies are valid only when they are much larger than the wavelength, but Max knew that. Intuitively radiant energy absorbed by an illuminated object is determined by its geometrical area.
This is not intuitive when the body is small compared to wavelength. That was my trick in the question.
Dusted off my Planck “Theory of Heat Radiation” and sure enough on PAGE 2 I found “linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as all radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wavelengths of the rays considered.” Pretty sure Maxwell & Gibbs always started the same.
The concept of radiation incident on a body is from geometrical (or ray) optics, which is never strictly valid b/c all bodies are finite. In order to determine “all radiation incident on” a body, what is meant by “incident” has to be well defined, but it is not. There are always departures from geometrical optics, these are negligible for sufficiently large bodies.
The seemingly heretical assertion about emissivities greater than 1, when mentioned to an antenna engineer, would be considered almost trivial. Anyone of those guys knows the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area.
Something else I noticed browsing the emissivity thread for grins: only wayne uses the word “polarization”. Good for him, no strict BB exist in nature, though some bodies are approx. black over a limited range of freq.s, directions AND polarization states of the exciting radiation.
[moderator has been fiddling, what trick wanted –Tim]
Konrad 2:07am: “Your numbers appear to indicate the opposite.”
Oh. Ok:
Box “B” at 50in – 50out = 0 LTE
Box “A” at 51in – 51out = 0 LTE
Box A has higher average temperature. I don’t even know which coil is where!
No tricks, just 1st law. Works.
******
“If this were not so, New Zealand vineyards would not be able to save their grapes from radiative frost by using helicopters to break up the inversion layer.”
No breaking of 1st law there either Konrad, just like no energy is harmed or created in your boxes. Just include the helicopter in box, control for and measure all the fluxes and near surface air temperature of the NZ vineyards will be revealed. Mmmmm….wine.
Trick 2:14 am: “…that BB emissivity has to be considered equal or less than 1. Took courage to tell him their answers….”
Caught by the html tags again, been watching for that, backslid a little.
Max 1:36am – “Yep, infrared net is capped at 0 because upwelling isn’t measured, it’s just calculated from the air temperature and subtracted from downwelling.”
If you look real close at the traces, they don’t seem to indicate this arithmetic is the procedure. Here’s what they do say:
“The Precision Infrared Radiometer, Pyrgeometer, is intended for unidirectional operation in the measurement, separately, of incoming or outgoing terrestrial radiation as distinct from net long-wave flux.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html
“Upward solar irradiance – Upward longwave is measured with an inverted pyrgeometer.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/starmeas.html
Trick says:
January 7, 2013 at 2:27 am
————————————————————–
The smallest helicopter I have is an Eflite Blade MSR, however with a rotor diameter of 180mm it is too large to fit in the box 😦
http://tinypic.com/r/2h2fg39/6
However if I did put a fan in box 2 then the average temperature would be the same as box 1. But that illustrates the point. If the normal force of buoyancy in the atmosphere is left to itself, an atmosphere without radiative gasses will run hotter. AGW team physics needs giant invisible helicopters to make it work 🙂
Well: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/sxfpics/tower-closeup.jpg
There’s the SD station downward pyrgeometers.
Upwelling IR: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_50ea3e898a8ca.png
Downwelling IR: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_50ea3ef29bc12.png
2013/1/1 14:04 These below have to include the IR values:
13:54: 268.40___263.30___263.10___268.40___261.30___261.40 ___ Net IR: 0.00
14:03: 268.60___263.40___263.30___268.70___261.40___261.50 ___ Net IR:-0.10
14:04: 268.70___263.40___263.30___268.80___261.50___261.50 ___ Net IR: 0.00
I can not determine which for certain.
For 13:54 it looks like the first and fourth column would have to be the down/up IR.
For 14:03 it looks like the first and fourth or fifth and sixth would work.
For 14:04 it looks like the first and fourth don’t work but the fifth and sixth would.
Now let’s check a time before the net went to zero.
1:12: 215.90___256.90___256.60___236.30___255.50___255.50 ___ Net IR:-20.40
For 1:12 it looks like the first and fourth column work.
1:23: 241.00___257.10___256.90___243.80___255.60___255.60___ Net IR:-2.70
1:24: 244.00___257.10___256.90___244.40___255.60___255.60___ Net IR:-0.40
1:25: 247.20___257.10___257.00___245.00___255.60___255.60___ Net IR: 0.00
Here’s the point where it first goes to 0 Net IR.
For 1:23 the first and fourth are closest but would give -2.80.
For 1:24 the first and fourth match up as expected.
For 1:25 the first and fourth give +2.20.
Checking the next few minutes we see where the curves crossed:
For 1:26 the first and fourth give +3.20 yet Net IR is listed as 0.00
For 1:27 the first and fourth give +3.30 yet Net IR is listed as 0.00
For 1:28 the first and fourth give +3.00 yet Net IR is listed as 0.00
Note that none of the six columns match up from 1:26 through 1:28, so where the 0.00 comes from is a mystery.
Konrad 3:22pm: Nice ‘copter picture. Thanks. You fly those?
Prefer the Sikorsky S-58 myself, having built a flyable simulation w/simple joystick/collective on a hybrid (analog/digital) computer that a military helicopter pilot trained me to fly. It was tough beast to control; before him I simply crashed pretty much right away but he could keep it going jerking the control stick around like mad, basically an unstable powered contraption. He said: “See, that’s how it is done!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34
“…an atmosphere without radiative gasses will run hotter.”
No, if keep just a tiny, tiny amount of atm. emissivity (.001 down from .793) to radiate away the energy out of the earth itself (0.1 W/m^2 usually assumed 0 but let’s not) and hold albedo constant by poking up equiv. wet cotton balls on poles where all the clouds used to be and the other usual sundry assumptions, the near surface global atm. Tavg. will be a cooler ~255K. By 1st law again, immutable.
(1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0.001/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 255K
That’s the way it is done. Gasses won’t run hotter Konrad unless energy is created out of nothing. Stephen’s adiabatic top post processes won’t run any faster or slower to compensate either unless energy is created or destroyed out of nothing.
Max 4:15am – Yeah, they are not very clear. Here’s a picture of the Desert Rock set-up. Radiometer back right with some blocks underneath, looks to be pointed up. Maybe that thing hanging over it is looking down, sorta’ looks that way? Gotta’ talk with an expert I suppose not the site creator. Click in picture for close up.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/index.html
Well, from the graph we can see that the net IR goes positive in the SD data posted, but it’s still listed as 0.
Trick says:
January 7, 2013 at 4:38 am
——————————————–
My actual licence is for fixed wing aircraft under 5700 Kg MTOW, constant speed prop and retract. However I have flown a chopper. A friend was training in helicopters and I got to fool around in an R44. However when it comes to choppers I prefer the models. Experienced chopper pilots refer to helicopters as “a few thousand parts that all hate each other, flying in loose formation” When you pre-flight a chopper, look for the white paint stripes on the bolts. It’s there for a reason 😉
Trick,
years ago when I was doing a solo training nav, I had an engine out. I recalled my training, that gliding my machine into the trees at 120 Kph was far preferable to frantically pulling back, stalling and nose diving at over 300 kph into the ground. I never hit the trees as I found the stuck butterfly valve and the airfield was on the coast with cliffs 30m above sea level. “Climate science” is never going to find the stuck butterfly valve and you are not 30m above sea level. You are going in. It’s either commit early and aim between the trees and try and rip those fuel filled wings off or keep pulling back and end up like last nights curry still in the alfoil.
Hey Konrad – Geez, what a story. That would be loose parts flying in close formation like some car engineers refer to their autos. And paint striped bolts finger tight really mean finger loose.
My posting on science is not going to augur in when flying conforming to 1st and 2nd laws, PV=znRT, Dalton’s law and other relevant nature. Check pilot me out on that. You make me think of gravity g though.
An exception to the natural laws is the atm. pressure gradient. I see lotsa’ discussion that lapse = -g/Cp is a fundamental force of nature. This is acceptable only if don’t believe in molecules; treating air as a continuous medium went out of science about the end of the US civil war. The fundamental physical meaning of pressure in a gas is a momentum flux.
The pilots that forget to fly their airplane 1st in an engine out situation, stall a wing, do a VMC roll, and land nose down are prevented from falling further by opposing electrical forces at h agl = 0. The role of gravity in atm. processes is really fairly transparent since charge does not appear explicitly in eqn.s of fluid flow. Doesn’t mean electrical forces don’t exist in atm., just they appear in quantities like viscosity. Electrical forces do determine atm. processes.
And always keep a good margin to bingo fuel. My ground school instructor: “If have an engine out at night VFR, head for the dark patch. Turn on landing light when you get there, if don’t like what you see, turn the light off.”
Trick,
An atmosphere without radiative gasses will still acquire energy by conductive contact with the surface. The AGW team claim such an atmosphere would be cooler than an atmosphere containing radiative gasses.
Could you please describe the exact physical mechanism by which a non radiative atmosphere can cool?
Konrad 8:52pm asks for “…the exact physical mechanism by which a non radiative atmosphere can cool.”
In that case, atm. would be perfectly transparent to radiation, it wouldn’t be giving birth or death to photons just letting them live a good, long life scattering , so conduction/convection remain. If Earth flux est. realistic at 0.12 W/m^2, allow atm. to settle lower at e=.001 & to see this gotta’ go in steps waiting for LTE each time step.
As the atm. emissivity is step reduced .793, .775, .758 etc., to .001 giving step time for each pole topped with wet cotton to be constructed where needed to keep albedo the same, the near surface global Tavg. adjusts down 1K each step per 1st law at each LTE, rounded.
Near surface global Tavg. reduces by 1st law 289K, 288K, 287K….to 255K where conduction/radiation of internal earth processes and insolation are balanced to deep space including increased campfires of the outdoor colder, shivering denizens at night.
At start, atm. emissivity being 0.793 at Tavg. 289K, UWIR is 396, DWIR from atm. by itself is 157, rounded.
On the way to atm. e=.001, at LTE time step where atm. emissivity is say 0.4 at Tavg. 269K, UWIR is 299, DWIR from optically thinner atm. all by itself is 60, rounded.
As atm. hypothetically achieves e=.001, hypothetical global near surface Tavg.=255K, UWIR=239.12, DWIR from the nearly transparent optically thin atm. all by itself is 0.12.
Still 239 – (239.12 – .12) = 0 LTE
239 – 239 = 0 LTE
Experiment with increase sun to 1390 in this scenario (or take down a few cotton poles).
Global 1K increase in Tavg. = 256K where 243.25 – (243.37 – .12) = 0 LTE
243.25 – 243.25 = 0 LTE
Exact, but rounded for clarity (my calculator did, oh, about 12 decimal places if you really want exact). And this can’t be pushed too far beyond assumptions, or disaster results.
******
I learned a lot about time steps in that scratch S-58B sim., too long a step and miss a whole oscillation, too short a step and overwhelm the digital computer memory. Had to keep the analog op. amp.s for pitch, roll, yaw rates from saturation and the whole thing sort of on course (w/no wind gusts either).
In the time for this post, would have crashed my S-58B sim. half a dozen times, pushed beyond assumptions – disaster.
I would come to really appreciate the training & skill of that former military helicopter pilot. That was a cool chance encounter when he saw my exasperation with the joystick, me thinking I must have a programming error, but no, he took over & flew that S-58B sim. like a champ.
Trick,
Well that would appear to be that. You do not in fact have any plausible physical mechanism by which a non radiative atmosphere could cool.
A non radiative atmosphere can heat by conductive contact with the surface, but it cannot effectively cool the same way. When the fraudulent AGW team replaced IR to space in a radiative atmosphere with conduction to a cool surface under a non radiative atmosphere, their “useless flux equations” were just that. Garbage. Equations for physically impossible garbage.
Worse, a “non radiative” atmosphere will actually heat very slowly due to the small amounts of radiation it can absorbed. To radiate to balance this temperatures would need to approach those found in the thermosphere.
Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere. If you dispute this, please describe a plausible physical mechanism by which a non radiative atmosphere can cool.
Konrad – Just keep in balance, take my math w/atm. .001 emissivity to .0001, then .000001 keep going as far as you like to call atm. non-radiative. Nothing unphysical ever happens.
There is still the approx. lapse rate –g/Cp (off from hypothetical atm. by ~20%) and the exact ideal lapse rate T(p) = 255*(P(z)/Po)^R/Cp (off from hypothetical by 10%) since none of their assumptions depend on radiation. Get atm. T=0 at P=0 height from P=density*R*T as the molecules lose KE & gain PE. You are thinking of the atm. as a continuous medium like pre-civil war thinking, it isn’t, there really are molecules.
The earth & near surface global atm. equilibrate at ~255K by conduction and the earth does the radiating to deep space thru the optically thin atm. Parking lot asphalt would still be hot, arctic still cold.
239-239=0 LTE 1st law.
Again, this is hypothetical, it can’t be pushed too far, if you push it beyond assumptions, disaster quickly arrives like my S-58B sim.
Real world additional infrared active molecules cool the atm. above about 600hPa to tropopause, they equally warm the atm. below about 600hPa. Energy is conserved in this way. Albedo, emissivity/absorption and insolation are the fundamental parameters that drive the near surface global Tavg. based on 1st law and are all changing a bit, all the time; picking out the unique effect of each is not yet possible. Much research ongoing. Maybe someday.
That plane you fly? Someone brave enough flew it the very 1st time – it worked. Fundamental laws of science repeat in nature.
The actual lapse rate changes when GHGs are present and the volume of the atmosphere changes.That is why the actual rate is 6.5C with water vapour present as opposed to the DALR of 10C.
Density changes and the amount of KE relative to PE changes.
Real world the surface temperature stays the same but the slope of the lapse rate and height of the atmosphere vary to conserve energy.
Convection responds to the changed slope with an opposite sign to the GHG effect.
Does the troposphere develop a ‘kink’ in the lapse rate at 600hPa ?
It would need to do so if it gets warmer below and cooler above.
Stephen asks: “Does the troposphere develop a ‘kink’ in the lapse rate at 600hPa ?”
A decent question since answer is not obvious unless understand calculus. The answer is no, the T lapse curves are continuous as mathematicians observe in the basic assumptions. Standard atm. follows a continuous curve as do the troposphere lapse rate approximations.
“The actual lapse rate changes when GHGs are present and the volume of the atmosphere changes. That is why the actual rate is 6.5C with water vapour present as opposed to the DALR of 10C.”
Yes, the planetary density changes by P=density*R*T. The planetary atm. volume is only useful by definition since TOA is only useful by definition. Water vapor (wv) is present in DALR too (as long as wv doesn’t condense – that’s where the “dry” comes from).
Infrared active gas (Stephen’s GHG’s include wv) being present is not the only reason the environmental lapse is different than approx. -g/Cp (off by 20%) and ideal exact T(p) (off by 10%). Both approximations assume some form of adiabatic assumption when no real process is adiabatic, neither include aerosols, the ideal exact lapse is from unforced max. entropy considerations when the real atmosphere is forced et. al.
As I wrote above 12/7 1:54pm, the role of gravity in atm. flux is fairly transparent.
“…the lapse rate and height of the atmosphere vary to conserve energy.”
Energy conservation is a fundamental of nature; lapse rate –g/Cp is a fundamental atm. property under certain simplifying assumptions, do not push them to disaster. All lapse rates result from energy conservation not vice versa, as does P=density*R*T.
“Convection responds to the changed slope with an opposite sign to the GHG effect.”
Sort of. Temperature decreases above about 600hPA with exact opposite energy (gas enthalpy) sign to increased temperature below about 600hPa with any addition of well mixed infrared active gas following conservation of energy and vice versa; yes, convection & lapse RESPOND accordingly.
“It would need to do so if it gets warmer below and cooler above.”
No. For example, all else being equal, less radiation is emitted from a clear sky than from a cloudy sky not because clouds reflect ground radiation but because emission by clouds is greater than that by air at the same temperature.
Our eyes deceive us: we cannot see IR. Merely because thick clouds (or anything else) highly reflect radiation we CAN see does not mean they necessarily highly reflect radiation we cannot see. Some do believe their lying eyes I guess.
“Temperature decreases above about 600hPA with exact opposite energy (gas enthalpy) sign to increased temperature below about 600hPa ”
Evidence ?
In fact, the surface temperature stays the same but the lapse rate slope changes with the change in the height of the atmosphere to negate any need for surface warming.
“Evidence?” The changing near surface global Tavg. reported each month is evidence changing the lapse start point with energy conservation; fundamentally driven from changing insolation, albedo, and emissivity. Sure, just redefine the TOA and atm. volume as needed to keep the changing near surface global Tavg. reported each month exactly constant. That would work.
Unless Stephen wants to challenge energy conservation as fundamental in nature.
That ‘evidence’ is nothing to do with GHGs, nor does it address temperature changes above and below the 600hPa height.
Correlation (for only a short period and now ceased) is not evidence of causation anyway.
The cessation of warming for over 15 years despite huge increases in CO2 emissions destroys any proposed correlation in any event.
The fact is that you now acknowledge that changing atmospheric volume would have the required negative effect.
It has taken you long enough.
Stephen says: “That ‘evidence’ is nothing to do with GHGs, nor does it address temperature changes above and below the 600hPa height.”
Nothing? Geez.
Stephen, you just need to take some time and read & understand a relevant modern text, the Bohren one(s) for instance. All will be revealed. The infrared active gas (your GHGs, water vapor even you mention) affects the atm. emissivity – I just told you about clouds, believe the fundamental science not your lying eyes. Emissivity affects the atm. temperature changes above and below 600hPa height. So do clouds, you feel it immediately during a sunny day when a cloud goes by (and see it in the continuous ESRL DWIR measurements), it has to be radiation not mass to react that fast.
“Correlation (for only a short period and now ceased) is not evidence of causation anyway.”
Agreed, except the changing of albedo, insolation and emissivity has not ceased according to all authoritative recent reports.
“The cessation of warming for over 15 years despite huge increases in CO2 emissions destroys any proposed correlation in any event.”
What about the steady increase in near surface global Tavg. warming over 100 years or even 30? Or longer/shorter cooling/warming? Cherry picking creates political & blog fun but not necess. science (need to read Statistics 101 text too Stephen, all the science will be revealed).
“…the surface temperature stays the same…”
The changing insolation, albedo and emissivity are fundamental causes to changing global Tavg. even in the last 15 years. Even monthly. Sometimes even ST volcanoes & aerosols & LT ocean/orbit cycles, meteors et. al. do it. Near surface Tavg. just doesn’t stay the same as often Stephen dreams it to be.
“The fact is that you now acknowledge that changing atmospheric volume would have the required negative effect.”
The atm. TOA is sometimes defined 100km. Alternatively Stephen can now see the anomaly reports could hold near surface atm. global Tavg. at 288K. Then compute the necessary change in the lapse curve to TOA to conserve energy – TOA being different each month relative to the 100km avg. defined over 30 years say.
The anomaly reports would then necessarily read 100km +0.2 km last month. 100.2km would be the new TOA global avg. height from varying insolation, albedo and emissivity with Stephen’s desire to hold global near surface Tavg. = 288K constant. Maybe next month 100km – 0.3km, 99.7km to TOA. That would work if want to report constant Tavg.=288K.
Keep wriggling Stephen, until you “get” the energy conservation fundamental science – up to then Stephen creates blog fun & science learning opportunity; long enough for me to learn more about atm. science at least.
Trick.
You are distorting and wriggling apparently without shame.
There is a substantial difference between top of atmosphere insolation from the sun and the proportion that the system allows into the oceans. The former raises surface temperature but the latter only affects circulation patterns.
The albedo and emission changes that you refer to are the negative system response to natural variations other than GHGs.
The system responses are negative whether the forcing is from CO2 or naturally induced composition changes within the atmosphere but the natural forcings and responses dwarf the CO2 effects into insignificance.
The background warming that you place so much store on goes right back to the Maunder Minimum with a few pauses and slight dips along the way.
You say:
“except the changing of albedo, insolation and emissivity has not ceased ”
which is utter rot:
i) according to the Earthshine project cloudiness has been increasing again since 2000.
ii) The jets are now more meridional/equatorward as is being recognised more and more widely.
iii) Tropospheric warming has ceased.
iv) Stratospheric cooling has ceased.
v) Ocean heat content is no longer rising.
Meanwhile human emissions are higher than ever but the whole climate system has gone into reverse in line with the fall in solar activity.
Please go away.
Trick says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:51 pm
“Konrad – Just keep in balance, take my math w/atm. .001 emissivity to .0001, then .000001 keep going as far as you like to call atm. non-radiative. Nothing unphysical ever happens.”
—————————————————————————————-
Trick,
You keep running back to your useless numbers, but it will not work. You were asked for a simple plausible physical explanation as to how a non radiative atmosphere can cool. You and the AGW team have yet to provide one. The math means nothing if it does not describe a physical reality.
I can provide a physical explanation of how a “non-radiative” atmosphere heats. It’s very simple –
– electromagnetic radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere and some of it is absorbed by the surface, thereby heating the surface.
– atmospheric gasses are heated by conductive contact with the surface, increase in buoyancy and can rise into the atmosphere.
– the temperature of these rising air masses is determined by the surface temperature maximum of the surface they were in contact with and the gas pressure at surface level. The initial temperature of atmospheric gasses being heated is of little importance as the thermal capacity of gasses is low compared to the heated surface they were in contact with.
– heated gasses that have risen to altitude cannot cool and descend as the speed of processes such as gas conduction and diffusion in the atmosphere are far too slow compared to the speed of surface conduction and convection in a diurnal cycle.
You will note I did not need to use a single number. You still have not provided a similar plausible physical explanation as to how a “non-radiative” atmosphere cools to 33C below our current atmosphere.
Trick, the processes by which a “non-radiative” atmosphere can heat are clear. Again, what is your simple physical explanation of how a “non-radiative” atmosphere can cool?
From your responses so far I don’t believe you have a plausible explanation. Some might believe AGW team just replaced the flux values for IR to space from a radiative atmosphere with flux values for conductive surface cooling for a non-radiative atmosphere, a physical impossibility. But the mistake these frauds made was not just failing to model the physical movement of gasses correctly, they failed to model them at all. They started with incorrectly applying SB equations to a non-existant “Earth” with a combined atmosphere and surface. Then they worked backward and represented the atmosphere as a single mathematical layer. The AGW team have never properly considered the implications of an atmosphere without strongly radiative gasses.
Without radiative gasses, our atmosphere would heat dramatically. AGW due to the addition of radiative gasses is therefore physically impossible. If you dispute this, then please provide a clear and plausible physical explanation of how an atmosphere without radiative gasses can cool.
Stephen 9:54pm “You (Trick) say: except the changing of albedo, insolation and emissivity has not ceased which is utter rot”
Then Stephen writes “according to the Earthshine project cloudiness has been increasing again since 2000.”
So albedo has been changing.
Then Stephen writes: “…human emissions are higher than ever…”
So atm. emissivity has been changing.
Then Stephen writes: “in line with the fall in solar activity.”
So insolation has been changing.
Let’s review: Stephen writes earth system insolation, albedo, emissivity are changing then when Trick writes the very same thing Stephen responds “utter rot”.
Hmmmm….what about Stephen’s other points?
Stephen writes: “Tropospheric warming has ceased.”
Stephen doesn’t mention a time period. No career risk in that statement. Lower tropospheric satellite based global average continues to change each month (year, decade) some months up, some down. Find data says no ceasing of change in mix of insolation, albedo and emissivity since satellite obs. started. GHCN shows same. So global near surface Tavg. has been changing monthly, sometimes warming, sometimes cooling – not ceased either way. Certainly not as Stephen writes “In fact, the surface temperature stays the same.”
Stephen continues: “Stratospheric cooling has ceased.”
Enter “stratospheric temperature trend” into google. I’m interested to read up on this, there is a lot going on up there; this 8/2011 report says cooling may not have ceased, measurements don’t seem too sure.
“Only a few observing systems offer data with long enough (i.e., multidecadal) records and the global coverage needed to evaluate stratospheric temperature trends….Analyses of (lower stratosphere) observations from radiosondes and AMSU/MSU all show cooling of about 0.4 K decade−1 over the past three decades and their differences suggest an uncertainty of about ±0.2 K decade−1; however, the number of analyses is small and actual uncertainties may be larger.”
Click to access Seidel_WIRES_Jul2011.pdf
Then Stephen writes: “Ocean heat content is no longer rising.”
No time period again or depth. Enter “ocean heat content” into google. Find recent NOAA report, look at Chart 1 & 2. Ocean heat content still rising in upper part of global ocean.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Stephen – this data look-up took maybe total few minutes. Lot to learn for both of us. Continuous improvement is good practice, ceasing to learn in the 60’s is not good practice.
Konrad 2:42am: “I don’t believe you have a plausible explanation.”
That’s fine. I believe I have given a plausible explanation based on 1st law. Best science practice is to dispute the physics not the beliefs. Your experiments conform to 1st law as does the real earth system, the hypothetical atm. I showed and the airplane you fly.
Which hypothetical atm. physics do you dispute exactly?
Trick says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:05 am
“I believe I have given a plausible explanation based on 1st law.”
————————————————————————————-
No Trick,
you have NOT given a plausible physical explanation of how a non-radiative atmosphere can cool.
Of course I am aware of why you will not provide such a simple physical explanation. It’s easy to see when you look at the evolution of the AGW hoax calculations.
– initially the AGW hoaxers modelled an imaginary “Earth” with a combined surface and atmosphere so they could misapply SB equations to gases.
– later they tried separating the surface and atmosphere, representing the atmosphere as a single mathematical layer. Convective energy transport cannot be modelled in this manner.
– to achieve a result showing a “non-radiative” atmosphere 33C cooler, they replaced IR flux from the atmosphere to space with a conductive flux to a radiately cooled surface. Nice mathematical trick however it is physically impossible. It may work for an atmosphere modelled as an infinitely thin layer, but not for a real atmosphere kilometres deep with a strong vertical pressure gradient.
This last bit is the bit you will not admit to. For all your evasion, the cooling mechanism for a non radiative atmosphere used by the AGW team calculations is “conductive contact with a radiativly cooled surface”. You a desperately avoiding admitting to this as you know that you cannot challenge my empirical experiments showing this mechanism to by physically unworkable.
Trick I will ask you directly. Is the physical mechanism for cooling of a non-radiative atmosphere used in the AGW team calculations “conductive contact with a radiativly cooled surface”. Yes or No?
“data says no ceasing of change in mix of insolation, albedo and emissivity since satellite obs. started”
As tallbloke has already evidenced here cloudiness decreased during the warming spell with an increase in OLR and according to various sources cloudiness has been increasing for about 10 years.
Trick cannot rely on BOTH decreasing and increasing albedo as evidence in favour of a warming effect from CO2.
There has been a clear change in direction of the trends but Trick is completely oblivious to it.
Trick is trying to use observations of negative system responses to natural variability as evidence in favour of a positive system response to assumed anthropogenic forcing.
Konrad,
Could you run past me again the problem you see with conductive processes reducing the rate of radiative cooling of a solid surface by a warmer layer of air above it.
I don’t seem to have picked up that issue from my previous reading of your findings.
If there are no or very few GHGs the only way energy can get out from the night side of a rotating sphere is by radiation from the surface and the air above will have been warmed by adiabatic descent.
I can see that the rate of conductive energy flow from air to solid might be limited by the density differentials but there must still be some reduction in the rate of radiative cooling on the night side.
Presumably the adiabatically warmed air prevents the night side from radiating so much that the temperature drops as low as it would have done if there were no atmosphere ?
Atmospheres are supposed to mitigate the temperature extremes on both night and day sides are they not ?
Stephen Wilde says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:33 am
—————————————————————
To clarify the purpose of my recent experiments, I am looking at the hypothetical question of what would happen to atmospheric temperatures if our atmosphere were devoid of all radiative gases. I have found that cooling at altitude is critical to keeping our atmosphere cool. Cooling the atmosphere in the manner suggested by AGW calculations, by conductive contact with a cooler surface simply does not work.
In this work, I have not considered surface temperatures except to the degree that land surface under a non radiative atmosphere would be colder at night under an atmosphere without H2O or CO2. However it is implausible that night surface temperatures on land would be as cold as the moon. The presence of even a non radiative atmosphere would of course moderate these temperatures.
I am aware that your working indicates that radiative gases have little impact on atmospheric temperatures. My work indicates they are a strong coolant. So powerful that their cooling power equals all the energy acquired by the atmosphere at low level by latent heat, conduction and the interception of a small amount of IR. AGW team calculations indicate that conductive contact with a radiately cooled surface could be even more powerful. My empirical experiments show this to be a physical impossibility in an atmosphere with a strong vertical pressure gradient.
“However it is implausible that night surface temperatures on land would be as cold as the moon. The presence of even a non radiative atmosphere would of course moderate these temperatures.”
Then we are agreed on that but presumably that moderating effect must be via conduction in a radiatively inert atmosphere?
Then if one introduces GHGs they can radiate out for a cooling effect but the air circulation slows down to compensate.
The slowing down of the air circulation retains energy longer in an equal and opposite response to the CO2 shedding heat to space faster.
That would be a planetary scale phenomenon which would not be replicable in your apparatus.
Stephen says:
presumably that moderating effect must be via conduction in a radiatively inert atmosphere?
I’m unsure which comment Stephen refers to (it would be helpful if he would attribute when quoting) but the ocean is the biggest difference between Earth and Moon in terms of the effect on surface temperature. Thermal inertia overnight and the minimisation of Holder’s inequality via poleward transport of heat are the key factors.
Rog,
I was responding to Konrad’s post immediately preceding.
Agreed as regards the oceans on Earth but Konrad and I were discussing a radiatively inert atmosphere which would preclude liquid oceans.
I’m just trying to reconcile my work with his.
Uh, perhaps this isn’t a big deal to everyone, but wouldn’t “non-radiating atmosphere” preclude the presence of any atmosphere whatsoever?
The naive SB calculation giving a 255 K temperature does not allow for there to be any surface cooling besides radiation, therefore there can be nothing in contact with the surface which could transport energy away from it in any manner. Non-existent “non-radiating atmosphere” or not.
What is the purpose of discussing absurd ideas like atmospheres composed of magical fairydust which doesn’t radiate?
Konrad asks 6:41am: “Trick I will ask you directly. Is the physical mechanism for cooling of a non-radiative atmosphere used in the AGW team calculations “conductive contact with a radiativly cooled surface”. Yes or No?”
I don’t know what the “AGW team” uses so cannot answer for that team. If you show me who & where “they” use what, I can look into it. Yes for the atm. thermo & radiation 1st course text book science which all use radiation, conduction and convectiion heat transfer physical mechanisms.
“No…”
More specifically, which part of my 1st law application is implausible for Konrad?
Max.
I previously said that there could be no radiativly inert atmosphere because all matter radiates to some extent.
However it is useful to consider the mechanics of a radiatively inert atmosphere in order to see how other processes could operate in the absence of a radiative capability.
In particular I suspect that the ideal lapse rate set by gravity is equally a fairy story because it must be the rate that would obtain in the absence of any radiative capability at all.
In the real world it never happens but nonetheless it underpins the whole system.
Agreed about the inapplicability of the SB calculation though.
Yeah, but if you start out with an utterly unrealistic basis, why would one expect anything but an unrealistic conclusion?
If it provided some benefit towards understanding things in a realistic manner I could get behind it, but as it stands I see no reason to think it does anything but obfuscate and confuse to work from absurd conclusions when you’re not striving for a proof by contradiction.
Whatever mechanics you may want to consider for a radiatively inert atmosphere are as valid as any mechanics you choose in such a situation, I can think about the mechanics of a radiatively inert cloud of pixiefarts but I don’t see how it would help me understand the real atmosphere.
Particularly since we know that there are people who actually seem to think only “GHGs” are capable of absorbing/emitting radiation, so there is a lot of damage done at this point already.
I love a good thought experiment… this is not one.
Stephen 9:20am: “Trick cannot rely on BOTH decreasing and increasing albedo as evidence in favour of a warming effect from CO2.”
I agree with Stephen so I do not “rely on BOTH decreasing and increasing albedo as evidence in favour of a warming effect from CO2.”
Albedo changes, along with changing insolation, and changing atm. emissivity driving changes in GHCN and satellite near surface global Tavg. measurements by 1st law.
“There has been a clear change in direction of the trends but Trick is completely oblivious to it.”
Trick knows a trend: There will be growth in the Spring (movie term). The global near surface atm. temperature anomaly goes up & down, pick your time frame, find your trend, apply confidence intervals (CI). If CI greater than trend, question whether your trend has any statistical significance.
“Trick is trying to use observations…”
And basic text book relevant atm. 1st principle theory. Well, I could try to use the atm. models instead, but….some around here might then be apoplectic, take 10 posts to calm down.
Trick dishonestly makes use of a selective quotation:
“Trick is trying to use observations…”
in place of this:
“Trick is trying to use observations of negative system responses to natural variability as evidence in favour of a positive system response to assumed anthropogenic forcing.”
The only think that Trick’s continuing contribution is good for is to keep up the post count for this thread.
Stephen 4:31pm – The last part of your sentence after “observations” makes no sense to me, thus for me to comment on it would be useless. Just wanted to point out when you are correct; observations are a better way to understand this stuff than complex, limited access models. That’s all.
What is your point about post count?
Over at WUWT is an article from NASA that essentially describes Stephan Wilde’s hypothesis if I am not mistaken.
Is that correct Steve?
Yes Gail.
Very similar.
Max,
If you had read through my comments on this thread you would realize that when I have used the term “non-radiative” I am referring to an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases such as H2O and CO2. I am well aware of the radiative properties of O2 and N2.
As to SB equations, it is about time you realised that it is totally inappropriate to use this type of calculation for a gaseous atmosphere.
Considering a non-radiative atmosphere is a very valuable thought problem. The AGW team have claimed that this would be 33C cooler. You will note that Trick still cannot provide a simple plausible explanation as to how such an atmosphere can cool.
“[A]bout time [I] realized that it is totally inappropriate to use this type of calculation for a gaseous atmosphere” you say?
I’ve been saying that the whole time.
I know that Trick can not provide a simple plausible explanation for how a non-radiative atmosphere would cool, no one can.
I am aware that you mean “gases which do not have broad absorption and emission spectra”, but there ARE people who think “non-GHGs” don’t emit at all, thus my suggestion that it might be helpful to not use language that could result in such confusion.
Functionally the closest thing we can get to considering a non-radiative atmosphere is a vacuum, isn’t it?
So perhaps it might be good to find a better way to talk about an atmosphere composed only of gases with weaker radiative properties?
Konrad 7:32pm: “You will note that Trick still cannot provide a simple plausible explanation as to how such an atmosphere can cool.”
Max 2:25pm: “I know that Trick can not provide a simple plausible explanation for how a non-radiative atmosphere would cool, no one can.”
I already have provided a very simple 1st law & 2nd law, P=density*R*T, lapse rate conforming plausible explanation as to how such an atm. cools above; it is trivially easy – I dunno why both think explanation for non-radiative atm. cooling is so hard: just need think about what radiative equilibrium really means = LTE. Boom, you have the plausible explanation for which you are looking.
I understand Konrad has deep faith in a non-science belief (2:42am “I don’t believe you have a plausible explanation”) which is fine for him but I’ve shown above the plausible 1st law science explanation for how a non-radiative atm. can cool – radiation to deep space, convection, conduction, various lapse rates do not stop as I stepped atm. down in emissivity to 0 perfectly in balance taking away atm. ability to radiate (emit/absorb) more & more. Nothing unphysical ever happens (well, except for hypothetically dissing atm. radiation), thermals and evapo-transpiration continue – they are just superposed on radiation anyway. Obtain in last step LTE atm. emissivity=0. Atm. T at TOA = 0 where P=0.
Max thinks the analogue is uninteresting “3:25pm: I love a good thought experiment… this is not one.”, but can learn a lot such as how big a mistake it is ignoring the adiabatic processes as long as don’t push analogue too far.
Near the surface, N2 molecule M-B distrib. most probable speed 412 m/sec reduces to 388 m/sec not too much slower (and so ratioed on up whatever flavor lapse curve you like) so this would be a basis for how much the ocean evap. might slow, a cooler ocean/atm. interface evaporating a bit less, thermals not as intense but still get a hot parking lot surface up to breath level 500x normal lapse rate. Storm fronts along lo/hi pressure lines would be less intense as the T differential slips lower from lower Vprob., atm. & ocean circulation continues.
The N2 molecule total E = Etran + Erot + KEvib +PEvib + Eelectronic + mgh 79% of atm. would be interesting in the hypothetical non-radiation atm.
Weld the idealized molecule radiational vibrational spring modeled between the two Ns together KEvib = PEvib = 0 for no absorption or emission of certain photon freq.s. Then see how that affects specific heat, electronic energy levels & Trenberthian balances. Could dig into that deeper if interested, could learn a lot more. Clouds would form, maybe not as many so need the cotton topped poles to keep albedo constant, ha, to avoid that headache.
There are fewer than 10^44 N2 so that welding wouldn’t take too long (LOL). Then dig into O2, the triatomic molecule H2O, weld shut their vibrational modes. And so on. Set up a weld shop. Go for it. Seems like someone must have already thought this thru somewhere, cannot find in quick search.
Lotta’ work, the education from iterative debate might be worth it.
Trick says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:42 am
“I dunno why both think explanation for non-radiative atm. cooling is so hard”
————————————————————————————————-
Trick,
I guess that would be because after three attempts you still cannot supply a plausible physical explanation for how an atmosphere without H2O or CO2 can cool 😉
You need to stop running back to the worthless maths Trick (s). You would be making a serious mistake if you think I am “math shy”. As you have no doubt picked up I work in design and engineering. I deal with everything from exotic materials, structures, mechatronics, aero and hydrodynamics. I run numbers every day. But if those numbers do not approximate a physical reality then they are worthless.
You are not being asked for numbers Trick. You are being asked to describe in words the a plausible physical mechanism by which an atmosphere devoid of H2O or CO2 can cool. Physical mechanism first, numbers second.
Here’s a little clue, if your numbers relate to SB equations being applied to a gaseous atmosphere, then your numbers are worthless junk. Just describe the physical mechanism by which an atmosphere without H2O or CO2 can cool. That shouldn’t be too hard should it? After all I can give a similar explanation of how such an atmosphere can heat and back that up with empirical evidence.
Here’s an idea! I have given you plenty of photos and diagrams of my experiments and results. You can use photoshop right? Why not just draw us all a trenberthian energy budget diagram showing energy fluxes to and from the atmosphere and surface for an atmosphere without H2O or CO2. If your math describes a physical reality, that should be easy. You have claimed some dissociation from the AGW team. You wouldn’t want to lumped in with Phil “can’t use excel” Jones would you?
Konrad says 9:19am: “Just describe the physical mechanism by which an atmosphere without H2O or CO2 can cool.”
Konrad – I just did, in more detail, at 4:42am & in less detail steps 1/7 11:45pm, take your pick. Yes, please do run the numbers. Would be very helpful.
N2 molecule total E = Etran + Erot + KEvib +PEvib + Eelectronic + mgh 79% of atm., all energy is conserved for the fewer than 10^44 N2 et. al. in earth/atm. system control volume on way to non-radiative atm. LTE.
A higher parcel molecules of N2 et. al. in the non-radiative atm. would be cooler than a lower molecule parcel (mgh term). A molecule in the non-radiative atm. exchanging more Etran. & Erot. with less Etran. & Erot. of molecule in dirt or water would cool atm., warm earth and vice versa, all energy conserved. This expectation borne out countless times each day on pool tables, parking lot asphalt all over the world.
“Why not just draw us all a trenberthian energy budget diagram showing energy fluxes to and from the atmosphere and surface for an atmosphere without H2O or CO2.”
Run the numbers Konrad, almost trivial to do this. You could learn a lot. Rather than debate TFK09 mod. I would do. Be 1st on your block w/one.
“…SB equations being applied…you have no doubt picked up I work in design and engineering…”
Good. Suggestions to Konrad for further design of experiment continuous improvement on S-B, M-B reading: P.W. Bridgeman, “Nature of Thermodynamics”, 1961, p. 23, Truesdell “Rational Thermodynamics” p. 4, and all 1st 5 pages are great fun to read, Truesdell does not mince words; early experimental verifications Loeb 1961, “Kinetic Theory of Gases”, pp. 130-138, and Jeans 1982, “An Intro. To Kinetic Theory of Gases.”, pp. 124-130, the whole 1st Chapter in Bohren/Clothiaux 2006 “Fundamentals of Atm. Radiation”.
Learn of control volumes in Sonntag 1965 “Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics”, p. 17 & Sec. 5.6 fig. 5.3 looks like drawing a control volume (dotted line) for one of Konrad’s boxes on p. 93 is terrific.
Texts are fundamentally better than blogs but not as interactive, texts start from solid science foundation and build from there. After all that, the explanation Konrad seeks will not be so hard.
Trick,
Still no physical description of how an atmosphere without CO2 or H2O can cool? Not even a quick sketch?
But of course you can’t. The very concept of reducing the radiative cooling of the atmosphere by adding radiative gases is totally ridiculous.
How could such an atmosphere lose more energy than it is gaining through conductive contact with the surface? How hot would it need to get before N2 and O2 could emit as much radiation as they were absorbing?
Go on Trick, I dare you to say it “adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces its ability to radiativly cool”. You may not want to say it but that is what the AGW team are claiming.
Konrad 8:44pm: “Still no physical description of how an atmosphere without CO2 or H2O can cool?”
If Konrad could see one, what would he expect to see? Don’t beat around the bush.
Picture this physical description. I would draw a picture but not an artist. On a nice still, clear cold winter night, say local thermometer near surface=273K (32F) or better if colder, find a nice normal asphalt parking lot of your choice, dry or wet. Preferably under a clear sky.
Picture standing on it. Take a deep breath. Then take off your shoes or boots and socks. Let bottom of bare feet “feel” the conduction from the parking lot. You just increased the temp. of the local surface. Do you dispute the atm. you just breathed in would feel the same effect at h =0 agl adjusted for its local temp.? (I can est. your starting feet temp., roughly anyway.)
Now picture same parking lot in summer, nice calm hot say 100F clear day about 2:00pm or so. Walk out there again, same spot, take off shoes & socks. Take a deep breath. Let bare bottom of your feet feel that conduction. You just decreased the local parking lot temp. Do you dispute the atm. you just breathed in would feel the same effect at h =0 agl adjusted for its local temp.?
Do you dispute a non-radiative atm. would feel the same conduction effects on both days? Feet & atm.?
“Go on Trick, I dare you to say it “adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces its ability to radiativly cool”.”
Konrad just did. I dare say, as above, near surface planetary atm. global Tavg. is driven by insolation, albedo, and emissivity by 1st law. They all change as global temporal and spatial sampled evidenced by GHCN and satellite et. al. near surface T measurements. If DWIR increases globally, it will slow the cooling of the global surface and vice versa within a reasonably well known planetary atm.
“How could such an atmosphere lose more energy than it is gaining through conductive contact with the surface?”
It would be in balance LTE, neither creating nor destroying energy in the control volume. I just showed you & “pictured” it. Three times all together, once with ref.s. Radiative, conductive, convective Earth system atm. emissivity=0 balance at LTE Tavg.=255K conforming 1st law, 2nd law, ideal gas law, kinetic theory of gases. Read up, study on it. Works.
“How hot would it need to get before N2 and O2 could emit as much radiation as they were absorbing?”
For Earth, ~255K global Tavg. atm. near surface., except think you mean atm. only conducting/convecting, correct me if not. Non-radiative atm. emissivity=0, remember. This is what radiative, conductive, convective equilibrium with atm. emissivity=0 LTE means.
Remember to put back on Konrad shoes & socks. Have fun studying.
NB1: Freshman engineering course (I placed into the adv. section, I thought “cool”.). Final exam 4-6pm quoted various parameters of a car engine & exhaust system, question asked “What is temperature of tailpipe? Estimate any missing parameters you might need, support your reasoning.” That scared me so much I still remember the sweat today. I wondered for a second, could I run out to a car and find out? But….I passed. 2/3 did not.
NB2: I remember double checking my answer by envisaging wrapping my hand around a car tailpipe to “feel “ the conduction pictured in my mind. Answer sort of seemed reasonable IIRC. I turned it in, thinking, man I just ended my college career and started making alternate plans.
Had to face my 2nd semester shortly thereafter, which was even scarier. Geez. But I had learned: don’t ever schedule any classes starting 4:00pm on Fridays.
NB3: Still no description from Konrad on what, who, where, when AGW team are claiming something.
Trick, surely you don’t mean — “just need think about what radiative equilibrium really means = LTE”.
First off, radiative equilibrium is not required for LTE, adequate collisions per second are required (adequate density) so that each local tiny sub-volume has the same temperature as the mean temperature of all of its immediate neighboring (eight if you like) sub-volumes. The neighboring sub-volumes don’t even have to be at the same temperature as the test sub-volume, just that the mean is met. That is, you cannot even define a temperature if this is not met and equipartition does not occur adequately and evenly and it doesn’t have anything to do whether external energy is flowing through these sub-volumes or not. Radiative equilibrium or even thermal equilibrium is irrelevant in speaking of LTE. Or maybe you see it different.
Trick says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:28 pm
“ Let bottom of bare feet “feel” the conduction from the parking lot. You just increased the temp. of the local surface. Do you dispute the atm. you just breathed in would feel the same effect at h =0 agl adjusted for its local temp.?”
—————————————————————————————————
Trick,
A sorry physical description, not even using gases, but at least far better than your previous efforts.
It is of course good for revealing that after all that running around trying to avoid saying it, you are essentially running back to “conductive contact with a radiately cooled surface will cool a non-radiative atmosphere”
Why on earth did you run back there? Remember this empirical experiment? http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
Remember what was happening in the boxes?
http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
I have proved by empirical experiment that conductive cooling at ground level will not offset conductive heating at ground level in an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient.
If conductive cooling at ground level is the only physical mechanism you can propose for cooling an atmosphere without H2O and CO2 then you are essentially confirming that AGW is a physical impossibility.
Oh, and this – “NB3: Still no description from Konrad on what, who, where, when AGW team are claiming something” – won’t work. The AGW team claim “33C cooler without GHGs” can never be erased. Never.
wayne 11:00pm – Not sure what you mean about LTE using words. Here it is in equation form. Use heat eqn. to learn if we “see it different” for the earth/atm. Trenberthian control volume of relevant interest:
Net flux in – net flux out = m*Cp*DT/dt W/m^2 where at LTE (long term equilibrium) DT/dt =0.
Net flux in – net flux out = 0 LTE
239 – 239 = 0 LTE for the CERES Trenberthian measurement period Mar. 2000 to May 2004.
For what I think you mean writing on sub-volumes see what I wrote in context above 12/16 7:20am:
“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.”
******
Konrad 11:20pm “If conductive cooling at ground level is the only physical mechanism you can propose for cooling an atmosphere without H2O and CO2 then you are essentially confirming that AGW is a physical impossibility.”
Do not see how this logic follows in any way experimentally or theoretically from what I have written. There is radiation to deep space, convection AND conduction operating for planetary LTE atm. w/emissivity=0. All three. Not just one and only physical cooling mechanism. The heat balance eqn. analogue only turns off atm. emissivity. There is nothing unphysical happening. You somehow jump to an unphysical conclusion incorrectly.
“…far better than your previous efforts.” Well now, progress.
“Remember what was happening in the boxes?”
I do. Radiative, conductive and convective heat transfer. One box is measured warmer simply because it has more energy flux than the other at the T measurement point. This is not surprising nor inexplicable nor in any way proving AGW a physical impossibility.
50-50=0 vs. 51-51=0 from my explanation above. Every lab could duplicate your boxes. No one would be surprised in any way.
Did you remember to obtain the IR thermometer and other equipment you deem necessary to measure each & every in & out flux I listed somewhere above and post the data showing why one box is warmer proving once again heat transfer physics is sound? (Like my little story of wrapping my hand around a car tailpipe to get the answer quicker in my exam?)
“I have proved by empirical experiment that conductive cooling at ground level will not offset conductive heating at ground level in an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient. “
The heat eqn. will work fine for your boxes and the atm. just the same, exactly the same. That’s why they use the word fundamental. As long as you control for the flux in – flux out at LTE.
Remember the cold fusion guys did experiment similar your boxes finding net heat out? Detail replication controlling correctly for heat fluxes was the key solution. Same for your experiment.
“The AGW team claim “33C cooler without GHGs” can never be erased. Never.”
33K cooler need not be erased, no need, it is fundamentally correct and based on fundamentals from past lab experiments by the masters I referenced. I am starting to get it though.
Konrad, for some unknown to me reason, equates the 33K with AGW. I don’t. There is no logical connection Konrad. Simple analogue physics showing the 33K is fundamental and there either is or is not measurable very, very complex AGW beyond that. Very different. Add a few more very’s if you like. Very, very, very…different.
One (AGW) is highly, highly complex, one so very, very basic and simple (33K) it should be absolutely obvious they are different. Very different. Hugely different. I can theoretically using past lab experiments (and feet on asphalt) provide analogue for one (33K) in a few minutes; the other (AGW) has never, ever been proven, no analogue for AGW exists AFAIK. Realize that and it will set you free.
Trick,
are you still pretending to not understand the two box experiment? It simple demonstrates why conductive cooling at the base of a gas column with a vertical pressure gradient cannot offset the effects of conductive heating at the base of such a gas column. It is very simple. Heated gases cannot get back in contact with the cooling elements at the base of box 2, and the speed of conduction through the gas is too slow to counteract the effect of thermals rising from the heating elements. Exactly the same thing would occur in our atmosphere if radiative gases were removed.
It does not matter that you can write maths that uses conductive cooling at the base of a non-radiative atmosphere to offset conductive and convective warming. The maths is rubbish because it does not represent the physical reality. Who care which “masters” wrote it?
It does not matter at all that the surface may get colder at night under a non-radiative atmosphere. Those heated gases at altitude will never get back in contact with it. Especially considering vertical convective circulation depends on there being radiative gases in the troposphere.
Here is a diagram that may help you understand. http://tinypic.com/r/5m01ac/6
This shows the energy flows to and from the surface, atmosphere and space for an atmosphere consisting entirely of N2 & O2. The energy flows are shown for both day and night. The first thing you should notice is that the energy flowing into and out of the atmosphere is far less than for a radiative atmosphere. You should also notice that there is an energy imbalance that would be heating the atmosphere. (this Non-radiative atmosphere is still trying to reach it’s N2 & O2 radiative equilibrium temperature of 100’s of degrees)
Have a look at the purple arrows representing the conductive energy flow between the surface and atmosphere. Note the purple arrow for conductive cooling of the atmosphere at night is smaller than the purple arrow for conductive cooling of the surface by day. This would be the reality. The strong vertical pressure gradient in the atmosphere simply traps cold air against the ground at night. During the day the temperature of rising thermals moving heat into the atmosphere is set by the local surface temperature maximum. A lower surface temperature average is irrelevant.
Feel free to draw your own diagram. I would love to see how you draw a non-radiative atmosphere cooling. Empirical experiment shows conductive cooling through surface contact cannot offset conductive and convective heating if the atmosphere has a vertical pressure gradient, so be sure your purple arrows are different sizes so as to match the physical reality 😉
Konrad 3:09am – Thank you for your effort on that graphic. I will need a bit to think it thru, want to get my thinking right first time. I can see a few ways to go to show the control volume energy flow must still be 239-239=0, temporal and spatial sampled. Mañana.
Konrad 3:09am – What this boils down to is me going ahead and estimating atm. emissivity =0 Trenberthian flux cartoon. I do believe you would learn more doing it iteratively yourself, but I’m interested to try. Then at least I will learn. But try and beat me to it. Some hints below.
No time right now, hockey game tonight and tomorrow. Hoping for team I follow to get a hat trick. Won’t get back to this (even if my interest holds) for some time plus a new Truesdell book just arrived today I want to get into, he’s a great read on history of this stuff.
As the world turns, your night red up arrow will diminish then increase, as you show. As you attach the red arrow to different points on earth, it will diminish and increase differently as you know. Not the same as “conduction” arrow which varies differently (which is really Stephen’s adiabatic processes thermals and LH). Reducing this data requires the spatial and temporal sampling effort discussed in TFK09.
The big yellow arrow will vary with TOBS, huge up at Noon summer equator then to zero at night.
The earth will radiative cool at night faster straight thru the atm. and the conduction arrow at night might even be larger than day, you can’t tell, could just as easily show conduction at night larger – depends on temporal & spatial sampling which depends delta T (your bare feet on asphalt as proxy for air molecules – bigger delta T bigger “hurt”).
As the world turns, DT/dt not equal 0, this is why Trenberth cannot show day & night. The spatial and temporal sampling process necessarily wipes out time. Why? Think about 1st law:
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
You would have to model your red arrow following this differential eqn., could be done, then temporal and spatial sample it – lots’ of work, already done for you in TFK09.
Also done for you in the simple analogue where time just gets ^poofed^ out in LTE:
(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 LTE
Which becomes for atm. emissivity = 0:
(1365.7 * 0.7)/4 – sigma*(1-0/2) * Tsurface avg. ^4 = 0 solve for Teq. atm. near surface = 255K
Spatially and temporally sampled to LTE which existed in the CERES time frame:
239 – (239-0) = 0
See right away the Trenberthian 396 goes down to 239 voila. I leave it to you on the others.
The big yellow arrow will be 239, and your big red arrow will be -239 when proper spatial and temporal sampling is performed at LTE. Be my guest on that. The “conduction” arrow spatial and temporal sampling will diminish as less energy is available to drive Stephen’s adiabatic processes. Maybe ratio them down based on the most probable speed of N2 at surface or a weighted avg. of atm. composition Vprob. Say 5% to 10% less at 90 instead of 97 W/m^2.
Or if you want to include the 0.1 W/m^2 coming out of the earth as a driver:
239.1 – (239.1) = 0 LTE with slightly higher near surface global Tavg. = 255.0356K
Works.
Why the rise of .0356K given that the lapse rate slope would change along with the atmospheric expansion ?
Stephen 8:54pm – To conserve energy, 1st law shows us the near surface global temperature is set by the balance of flux in density – flux-out density = 0 at LTE. Spatial and temporal sampled (you can tell I like those Trenberthian TFK09 terms).
That allows computation of the very lowest 1st point on the planetary lapse rate at h agl = 0 (is To = the potential temperature*). Then you can compute the rest of the ideal exact lapse up to tropopause or extended for grins to wherever you call P=0 (~10% max. off from nature’s) with atm. e=0 from T(P) = 255*(P(z)/Po)^R/Cp and the rougher approx. lapse –g/Cp easier (but off ~max. 20% from nature’s).
Gotta’ know that starting T point.
Of course, any local lapse is set locally. You stand in an asphalt parking lot in Phoenix summer a little after high noon and the T lapse from your shoes to your head is about 500x nature’s. Bare feet suffer but the air is breathable.
*The potential temperature is temperature a gas parcel would have at h agl =0 if brought down from an altitude. (My words, better way to say this in the texts).
So if 1st law 239-239 atm. emissivity balance computes T=255K rounded, then 239.1-239.1 computes 255.0356 starting potential temperature To, not so rounded. Hint: I had to move up forcing from 1365.7 to 1366.3 with same albedo for 239.1. So a good question, I didn’t write that, post was long already.
Run To at 239-239 =0 and 239.1-239.1balance for emissivity =.793, all the data is there for you, get some practice. I can do later if you ask, I have to boogie now.
At the surface, any atm. expansion however you define would still leave surface density the same. Po=density*R*To, once know To, know Po. Use standard atm. or local density measured. There is probably more on this density logic in the texts, no time now.
“At the surface, any atm. expansion however you define would still leave surface density the same”
Would it ?
The weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the surface might be the same but if the atmosphere has expanded there will be less molecules in each unit of volume which means reduced density within that volume.
Then we know from basic physics that the temperature achievable depends on density because it is the number of molecules within a given volume reacting with the energy passing through that leads to a temperature rise.
So less molecules within a given volume but subjected to the same amount of energy passing through would achieve a lower temperature than the same volume containing more molecules.
Is that what you are missing ?
Trick, LTE is a definition, here’s Wikipedia’s that sounds basically correct:
You might even get a bit more out of my explanation gathered from many books and references over the years. You definitely odn’t define it by a math equation… sorry, you are wrong there.
Trick… what a trick !
I just noticed you re-defined LTE that should, I guess, be LTTE… slick.
LTTE is IN = OUT. Brilliant insight! ;). Oops, let me put it in your proper form: IN – OUT = 0.
So that is what you have been speaking of the last some twenty comments. Who would have guessed after missing those two words. I thought you had lost your mind!
What do you reckon on section 4 of this?
Starting about ” A well-known example is the pressure of gas in the atmosphere, which follows a exponential distribution. This matches the maximum entropy distribution for a given mean and positive values.”
And goes on to mention is defined by constraints.
Click to access hessd-6-C2733-2009.pdf
Very sharp cookies thereabouts, awful lot of reading.
Trick,
back to the maths? I thought we were going to get an energy flux diagram for a non-radiative atmosphere…
And then this –
“The earth will radiative cool at night faster straight thru the atm. and the conduction arrow at night might even be larger than day, you can’t tell, could just as easily show conduction at night larger “
Sorry, but that is exactly what the empirical two box experiment is disproving. Conductive cooling at the base of a gas column with a vertical pressure gradient is ineffective compared to conductive heating at the base of the same column. Energy can only leave the base of the gas column at the speed of gas conduction, where as energy can enter the gas column at the speed of convection. Gravity is acting as a partial one way valve. This effect has never been properly modelled in AGW calculations.
You can see the effect is real by studying the near surface atmosphere over desert regions which lack water vapour. On calm nights a strong near surface temperature inversion develops, while the air near the ground can get very cold, the inversion and stagnation of circulation prevent much energy being extracted from the atmosphere above. The loss of energy from the air above the inversion is limited to the slow speed of gas conduction. Contrast that with the situation after sunrise, conduction and convection now transfers far more energy into the atmosphere than conductive surface contact extracted during the night.
The AGW team in ignoring gravity and fluid dynamics have totally misrepresented the role of radiative gases in our atmosphere.
– Radiative gases drive strong vertical convective circulation below the tropopause
– if convective circulation stalls, the atmospheric temperatures can conductively equalise and the atmosphere will become isothermal and the lapse rate will disappear.
– radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
You will not that the diagrams I have shown here http://tinypic.com/r/5m01ac/6 and here http://tinypic.com/r/6zy1ky/6 simply show the start of convective collapse and atmospheric heating after the removal of radiative gases.
The atmosphere superheating that would follow would be even more extreme
wayne 11:01pm: “sorry, you are wrong there.”…about an abbreviation for local thermal equilibrium when clearly the context is long term equilibrium, you know like 4bln years.
What term would wayne prefer for setting DT/dt = 0 over 4 bln years give or take? I’m easy.
Yes! In = out! I like it. Thermo is like that for control volumes esp. & Trenberth cartoon would be nowhere w/o in=out equilibrium. 4bln years give or take is a marvel. That’s what they really mean by in=out equilibrium.
In statics, a standard railway or highway bridge in=out equilibrium would be force down applied = force up restraints. Rocket science dynamics F = ma. What about electronics (term for that iPhone in your nerd pack)? V = IR. Man, I always liked the 1st day in class, then the hard stuff happened and I lost my mind.
******
Stephen 10:07pm: Right, the density at the surface just needs to follow the ideal gas law. Not missing anything at all, pretty sure atm. near surface gas will follow IGL.
******
Tim C. 12:11am: Yes reading is good. Wish more happened around here. I will browse that, but I will be tied up with Truesdell for awhile: “Rational Thermodynamics”.
Already learned on p. 2 Euler did not know the general principle of energy – yet I had to use his elegant “Euler angles” on 2nd most painful Exam ever which I recall vividly where I had a question demanding me to write the general eqn.s for motion of a standard quarter rolling on a (flat thankfully) surface given certain IC, then use the Hamiltonian to minimize its energy and find the one & only solution.
A text on “continuum mechanics” or “material science” led me into mappings, fields of vectors and tensors, Jacobians, said Hamiltonians, differential invariants, partial differentials. They usually devoted a SHORT chapter or section to thermodynamics with its grandiose 1st law, 2nd law, but unusually trivial applications with classical illustrations so special as to be degenerate. What a contrast; thermo guys still like to think their science somehow implies mechanics as a corollary.
With thermo you get arsenal of terms like piston, boiler, condenser, heat bath, reservoir, ideal engine, perfect gas, quasi-static, cyclic, nearly in equilibrium (hello wayne?) nearly in=out, isolated, universe – all from everyday life not more elegant “tangent plane” or “gradient” or ”affine connection”.
Thermo gives you the axiom T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q. We get dS is a differential, but not of what variables S is a function; that delta Q is a small quantity not generally a differential; you got to believe not only that one differential can be bigger than another, but even that a differential can be bigger than something which is not even a differential! Ref.s cited lead to other books containing the same dang material! Geez.
Not only do differentials in thermo replace derivatives but even when thermo uses derivatives they look different than those in calculus. Yikes, thermo terms come with more rhetoric than wielded by a housewife in a grocery store, a blogger mad at me or a sportscaster on New Year’s Day. I digress.
******
Konrad 1:32am: Seems to step out of the boxes and move into the atm. Welcome! It is pretty cool where T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
“The AGW team in ignoring gravity and fluid dynamics… radiative gases cool our atmosphere.”
A step into the twilight zone (term from TV, cue music). Glad I’m not on that team, those are interesting subjects.
Radiative gases do cool planetary atmospheres in places; if so, they also then must warm them in places as they cannot create nor destroy energy. No thing or process can do so far as science knows to date. Remember T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q. It will set Konrad straight.
“…the atmospheric temperatures can conductively equalise and the atmosphere will become isothermal and the lapse rate will disappear.”
Oh my. Calling Stephen. I hand this one off to you. I’m busy reading Truesdell & re-reading. Hint: Truesdell shows where the thermo grand masters say isothermal if and only if the air column of interest may do work on the air above and below (Gibbs 1876! post US civil war & before gunfight at OK corral). Boom, a straight line T=288K surface up to exosphere last N2 molecule. Assumptions, oh the assumptions…
I’ve read Gibbs and found each & every paper duly starts: Consider macro only and let the system come to equilibrium…ok, I’ll do that sir, but my nose is in Truesdell for awhile.
Wouldn’t adding gases with more active radiant properties take the same amount of energy and distribute it over a larger volume, hence reducing the energy density?
Trick says:
January 12, 2013 at 6:28 am
—————————————————————
Just “a step into the twilight zone”, that’s it? Surely I could be accused of being a “Flatearther”, “anti science”, a “big oil shill” or at the very least a “holocaust denier” 😉
Lets just have a check who is in the twilight zone…
I understand that the atmosphere acquires energy from conductive contact with the surface, the release of latent heat from water vapour and the small amount of intercepted outgoing IR from the surface. I understand that radiative gases in our atmosphere are responsible for radiating almost every watt of that acquired energy to space from the mid to upper troposphere.
For some reason the AGW team believe that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere. Just who is in the twilight zone?
Trick, when faced with a physical system as complex as our atmosphere the most logical thing to do when considering the impact additional radiative gases is to first consider what the total absence of these gases would result in. This hypothetical situation is what the AGW team have failed to properly model.
If you keep running back to the math used by the AGW team, you will always get the wrong answer. They never correctly modelled the physical movement of gases in our atmosphere. Do this correctly and you will find that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling.
Konrad 11:59am: “This hypothetical situation is what the AGW team have failed to properly model.”
Again, I do not get why any AGW team has anything at all to do with the basic thermo master’s physics. I am certainly not running back to AGW team as I do not even know who they are. Wouldn’t know to whom or where to run. If I got in my car, to where would I drive?
I am interested to know/discuss where Konrad (not any magical AGW team) can demonstrate there is a fault given the reasonable assumptions in the simple energy balance showing 255K at atm. e=0. It certainly works fine global atm. e=0.793 for earth showing 289K. It works fine for Venus ~732K also, a little more hairy over there with much more optically thick atm.
So far as I can tell Konrad has not made one physical objection to the hypothetical balance.
Hypothetical Trenberthian diagram across the bottom could be guessed. If can’t follow the basic maths. Konrad would have learned doing this on his own.
IS with Tavg. 289K:
+161 – 17 – 80 – 396 + 333 = 1 net absorbed
AS with Tavg. 255K atm. e=0 hypothetical Trenberth cartoon bottom balance:
+161 – 15 – 75 – 239 + 169 = 1 net absorbed
Can Konrad et. al. make a physical objection to this hypothetical balanced cartoon 239-239=0 i.e. wayne’s in=out 239=239? Is that done correctly Konrad?
Here Stephen’s diabatic process 239 goes straight thru the optically thin as possible (at 0) atm. to deep space. Stephen’s adiabatic processes run a bit slower (ratioed down by Vprob. to surface T=255). The 15+75=90 which can’t cross to space as thermals/rain so comes back down stays in system winds/circulation L&O in Stephen’s adiabatic process descending air parcels and released latent heat total 90+78solar =168+1absorbed 169 to surface.
It is a big mistake to ignore Stephen’s adiabatic processes – they would work just fine for 4bln years (until wayne comes up with a better term) and it would be chillier here on the surface. Add a coat, run the furnace more, save on A/C bills in summer. Nothing unphysical happens, certainly no superheated atm.
Compute whatever flavor lapse rate you like starting from h=0 at 255K, chocolate, rocky road, plain vanilla, nature’s, go for it.
And at hypothetical global near surface Tavg.=255K still have energy conserved & of course: T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
konrad, trick,
You are at cross purposes, different contexts.
konrad is correct provided his situation never reaches steady state because there isn’t one. He is also correct this is not modelled (not even remotely).
trick I think is dealing with a mean state. Do the two say the same thing?
This latter case requires an energy throughput therefore must in practice be flapping inside.
Tim C. – Neither can debate from entropy POV as both Konrad boxes and earth/atm. system are forced. Conservation of energy though works fine for both. Lapse rate can be developed from both entropy and energy conservation POV so applicable to both box & atm.
tchannon says:
January 12, 2013 at 6:28 pm
“konrad, trick,
You are at cross purposes, different contexts”
—————————————————————————
Tim,
Yes this would appear to be the case. The findings from my empirical experiments indicate a mistake in AGW calculations so extreme that I fear few can grasp the implications. This is not about radiative gases having less effect than previously thought, or no effect, but in fact the complete opposite effect to what the AGW promoters have claimed. I am saying that radiative gases have a powerful cooling effect on the atmosphere.
As to cross purposes, Trick is trying to use energy flux equilibrium calculations. I am instead considering the hypothetical physics of an atmosphere without radiative gases. To explore this I have conducted a number of experiments on convective circulation and temperature profiles in a gas column showing what happens when the relative heights of the heating and cooling positions are changed. It turns out that energy loss at altitude via radiative gases is vital to convective circulation and temperatures in the atmosphere.
In my diagrams here http://tinypic.com/r/5m01ac/6 and here http://tinypic.com/r/6zy1ky/6 I am simply showing what would happen to an atmosphere with a temperature profile similar to our current atmosphere shortly after removal of radiative gases. The non radiative atmospheres shown in the diagrams are in the process of heating. They are not at equilibrium. Tricks energy flux equilibrium calculations are therefore inapplicable.
To model the exact state of a “non-radiative” atmosphere when such a planet reaches radiative equilibrium is very difficult. I can say with absolute certainty that it would have a far higher average temperature than a radiative atmosphere. 33C cooler is an impossibility. Just considering a desert planet with a N2 O2 atmosphere, conditions that may occur are –
– super heating due to the small amount of radiation intercepted by N2 & O2 similar to thermospheric conditions
– severely reduced surface pressure due to atmospheric expansion and losses to solar wind
– dramatic near surface diurnal temperature fluctuations
As you can see there is little point in trying to model this equilibrium condition.
Tim, I am holding the position that radiative gases cool our atmosphere and that adding more will not reduce the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere. Trick is supporting the “consensus” position that radiative gases will heat our atmosphere. I have pointed out that a “non-radiative” atmosphere can still heat by conductive contact with the surface. I have shown by empirical experiment that this heating cannot be offset by conductive surface cooling. You will note that in numerous response on this thread that Trick has still been unable to propose a plausible physical mechanism by which a non-radiative atmosphere can cool, let alone cool to 33C lower than current temperatures.
The idea that radiative gases cool our atmosphere may seem to be a Twilight Zone story to some, but Trick and his AGW fellow travellers need to look out the window of Consensus Airways flight AR5. This time there really is a gremlin tearing up the wing 😉
konrad,
I tend to agree on the cooling (I’m only confirming what I wrote ages ago but few understood) except other atmospheric activity will dilute the effect. Probably by a lot.
This is where wind, circulation steps in and part of why I say that regardless of the details for a spinning body in a moderate or highly flux field there will be a circulation pattern, probably similar to earth.
This mixing up of the atmosphere tends to take things more towards a generalised limit case which trick is I think considering. Might be the same elephant.
Take earth. Yes inversions form but even given water vapour as able to breach the barrier inversions still exist and can be strong. Possibly the most infamous was about 1917 in I think Alaska. Sat there for near a month.
The takehome to me is the asymmetry of convention and inversion concurrently, day/night is why a zero ghg atmosphere does heat contrary to claims widely made.
tchannon says:
January 13, 2013 at 4:38 am
“except other atmospheric activity will dilute the effect”
—————————————————————————–
Tim,
You are in part correct. Night temperature inversion can be broken up by what meteorologists refer to as “mechanical convection”. This involves winds and surface turbulence that disturb the near surface air and improve the ability of a radiativly cooled surface to cool the atmosphere. However, the stronger the temperature inversion, the stronger these effects need to be to have an effect. The night temperature inversion that would occur over land under a non radiative atmosphere would be far stronger than that that currently occurs in the driest deserts.
The two box empirical experiment works. The bigger you build it, the better it works. What it shows is that conductively cooling a gas column with a pressure gradient from the base is ineffective compared to conductively heating the same gas from the base of the chamber. In the real atmosphere with a far more severe pressure gradient the effect will be far more pronounced. The “mechanical convection” that currently occurs in our atmosphere cannot offset this.
When you consider the forces driving “mechanical convection” you will realise that they would be far less powerful in a “non-radiative” atmosphere. Strong vertical convection (in three main cells from the equator to poles) combined with coriolis forces drive most most of the wind systems on the planet. However strong vertical convection under the tropopause is driven by radiative energy loss at altitude. Another force driving strong winds is Lindzens diurnal solar wave. However in a non radiative atmosphere (much hotter than present) the temperature differential between average near surface air temperatures and daytime surface Tmax would be reduced, reducing the power of this effect. In a non radiative atmosphere Lindzens solar wave would be very weak. It is likely in a non-radiative atmosphere that the only forces capable of creating “mechanical convection” would be surface advection winds occurring for short periods around sunrise and sunset.
Essentially a non-radiative atmosphere can be easily heated by conductive contact with the earth’s surface, but it cannot be easily conductively cooled by conductive contact with the surface. The land surface would reach a far lower Tmin under a non-radiative atmosphere but the effectiveness of the “partial one way energy valve” created by gravity and the vertical pressure gradient in the gaseous atmosphere will still prevent the surface from effectively cooling the atmosphere.
The AGW promoters energy flux equations are giving the entirely wrong answer because they have not properly modelled the basic physics of our gaseous atmosphere. The critical mistakes are legion and belie belief –
1. Initially modelling an “earth” with a combined surface and atmosphere
– This allows SB equations to be misapplied to gases
2. Using average fluxes (for a flat disk!) instead of modelling diurnal fluctuation in energy fluxes
– This leads to the mistake of using surface Tav instead of surface Tmax for energy conductively heating the atmosphere.
3. Later modelling the atmosphere as separate from the surface yet modelling it as a single infinitely thin mathematical layer.
– This does not allow correct modelling of convective energy transport and leads to the incorrect assumption that conductive surface cooling of the atmosphere can match conductive heating.
4. Failing to empirically check whether DWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans.
– 71% of the Earth’s surface is actually not effected by DWIR
5. Failing to correctly calculate the increased IR that the atmosphere would be able to radiate to space from energy it has acquired from conduction and latent heat if radiative gases were increased
6. Above all, not properly modelling the consequences of removing radiative gases from the atmosphere.
Tim C. 4:38am: “…a zero ghg atmosphere does heat contrary to claims widely made.”
Konrad 1:32am: “…after the removal of radiative gases. The atmosphere superheating that would follow would be even more extreme.”
Konrad 9:03am: “…a non-radiative atmosphere can be easily heated by conductive contact with the earth’s surface, but it cannot be easily conductively cooled by conductive contact with the surface.”
I am selectively quoting here to keep this post shorter. The thread is longer than some browsers will load fast enough, participation declines. I have already posted up why Konrad’s conjecture of atm. superheating from hypothetical disabling atm. polyatomic molecules vibrational KE (atm. e=0) cannot happen in this universe as we know it and Tavg. will be =255K in equilibrium. But like me, Konrad and Tim C. et. al. have not been able to see it at first. Here it is in all its grandiose glory:
T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
This is nature’s perfect defense for no superheated atm. and y’all cannot defeat it.
I have not discussed much on the 2nd law, nature’s defense against superheated atmospheres with low or 0 emissivity. 2nd law is a beast. I can see why anyone could be overcome by it. This entropy beast cannot be chained down thereby causing an atmosphere to superheat. Entropy will break all chains. Nature makes sure no superheating occurs by loosing entropy on us. Earth atm. lapse will hypothetically start at 255K at surface to T=0 up at p=0 with atm. all by itself with hypothetical e=0 as it must b/c T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
Konrad in writing this next quote obviously thinks his experiment shows such a chain on entropy exists in his assertion the atm. will superheat. Eliminating this chain on entropy was not possible even by James Clerk Maxwell during his lifetime. Took until the early 1950’s to finally defeat the chain and let entropy completely loose on us as Maxwell knew it must be loosed but couldn’t prove it.
Konrad continues 9:03am: “The land surface would reach a far lower Tmin under a non-radiative atmosphere but the effectiveness of the “partial one way energy valve” created by gravity and the vertical pressure gradient in the gaseous atmosphere will still prevent the surface from effectively cooling the atmosphere.”
The official name for Konrad’s “partial one way energy valve” is Maxwell’s Demon.
Maxwell’s Demon was given birth by Maxwell himself ~1870 or so & the Demon wasn’t officially defeated until the early 1950’s which forced the superheated atm. argument out of existence; e=0 atm. will not superheat w/o decreasing the unforced entropy of the earth which is impossible b/c T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
Want to discuss more? I’m interested as I’m on the side of entropy. And entropy cannot be defeated.
The hockey team I follow was defeated last couple nights; by a team in their league that had never swept a weekend series in history. I wish entropy played on the team I follow.
Trick,
Here’s a little experiment you can build to trap Maxwell’s demon in a box. First you need a tall demon catching box made of insulating foam with an internal volume around 200 x 200 x 500mm high. For the base of the box use a thin 200 x 200 polished copper heating and cooling plate mounted at a 5 degree angle. Fix several peltier chips to the underside of the copper (outside the box) with silver heatsink paste. To the underside of the peltier chips attach aluminium water blocks with 20C water flowing through them. Use a relay and a timer to swap the polarity of the DC power running to the peltier chips. You should be able to rapidly change the temperature of the thin copper plate from 80C to -10C and back again.
At a rapid cycle rate of 5 seconds at 80C followed by 5 seconds at -10C run for 30 minutes you should find the average gas temperature in the box to be around 35C.
At a medium cycle rate of 20 seconds at 80C followed by 20 seconds at -10C run for 30 minutes you will note that the average temperature in the box rises toward 80C.
At a very slow cycle rate of 30 min at 80C followed by 30 min at -10C run for hours you will note that the average temperature in the box drops again toward 35C yet the box is experiencing large temperature fluctuations on a 30 min cycle.
So at the medium cycle rate Maxwell’s demon is trapped in the box, right?
Wrong! That’s not Maxwell’s demon heating the gas to 80C. That’s the AGW gremlin. His name is Gravity.
Konrad 9:36pm – Your box experiments conform perfectly to 2nd law since they are natural. No claim coming from your experiment can be used against the 2nd Law (or 1st Law). There is no hope for that. You will have to look elsewhere & come up with a conforming explanation to defeat your AGW Gremlin, whatever that is.
Maxwell’s Demon stands defeated; there is no “partial one way energy valve” even by a Konrad AGW Gravity Gremlin in your boxes or in the earth/atm. system or any planetary system or experiment. The conductive surface cooling of the atmosphere will match conductive heating and reach equilibrium. There is no Demon or Gremlin selecting heating over cooling forcing a superheated atm.
Ref. I recommend is: “Maxwell’s Demon: Why Warmth Disperses and Time Passes”, H. Von Baeyer 1998.
“Readers will find themselves rooting for Maxwell’s ever-mischievous Demon (or Konrad’s AGW Gravity Gremlin) even as they come to appreciate that he is doomed to failure.”
…because as always:
T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
I don’t know where one way came from.
trick, I don’t do pure math, don’t mention what I do do. There is a severe communication gulf including same words different meaning.
Asymmetric? Of course there is, we are dealing with time, different regimes at different times. It is a sampled system, inherent in the rotation. Similarly the two processes operate concurrently in different locations.
Hi Tim 1:51am – Yeah, that’s ok with 2nd law to act in different places, cooling night, asymmetric warming day as long as the conduction flow is unimpeded as in nature. To get the atm. to superheat, Konrad needs his selective valve to have the higher KE of the earth w/non-radiating atm. selectively always sent one way to heat the atm. continuously thru the diurnal cycle. There may be another conforming way, maybe he’s working.
That’s what Maxwell’s demon does or did. Between two thermally connected reservoirs, it opens a trap door from cold-to-hot to let only the M-B distrib.“hot” molecules into the already hotter side enabling the cold side to warm the hotter side. Cold then unnaturally flows to warm by the demon superheating the atm. by lowering unforced entropy of earth.
Maxwell knew this couldn’t happen but it is really hard to prove with the higher math we both avoid. And he couldn’t prove it. There were several attempts over the years that were thought successful but failed when others found loopholes (one soln. to loophole was to make the demon intelligent) up until the final one did the job in the early 1950s w/no loopholes found yet. That book ref. tells the tale.
There is a lot of rhetoric in thermo so as you write severe communication gulfs develop – I used a couple in this thread for fun, only the most degenerate math works or on the other end the highest cost CFD you can imagine. There could never be so many competing blogs debating beam theory for instance.
Trick says:
January 13, 2013 at 10:55 pm
“Maxwell’s Demon stands defeated; there is no “partial one way energy valve” even by a Konrad AGW Gravity Gremlin in your boxes or in the earth/atm. system or any planetary system or experiment. The conductive surface cooling of the atmosphere will match conductive heating and reach equilibrium”
—————————————————————————–
Trick,
I have shown by empirical experiment that that statement is entirely false.
In the two box experiment Box 2 has both heating and cooling elements at the base and rises to a higher average temperature than Box 1 which has heating at the base and cooling at the top. If you were to run the experiment in microgravity on the international space station the results would be very different. Both boxes would have the same average gas temperature.
You have tried maths tricks, hand waving and endless evasion. Now you are making provably false statements. If you need to resort to this to defend the dogma, then you are simply reinforcing my claim that AGW is physically impossible.
Konrad 4:24am – Uh huh. Well.
“..by empirical experiment..false.”
Let me try another form of communication, my attempt at communicating the 2nd law science being useless in this case.
Konrad has a deep, faith based belief that energy net flux-in to Konrad’s two boxes is exactly the same though Konrad hasn’t controlled for and measured it precisely. Konrad has an arrangement in Box 2 that raises its temperature on earth above Box 1 but would not do so on space station. Konrad bills this arrangement as the Konrad Gravity Gremlin (“partial one way energy valve” patent pending).
Ok, I now come over to Konrad lab (the one on earth!) bringing precision flux measuring devices & control for net energy flux-in to both boxes being precisely the same. Then I connect my Trick Gravity Gremlin Heat Engine (GHE) electricity generating device (patent pending) between Box 2 higher temperature and Box 1 lower temperature. We then hook my device to Konrad’s range & toaster and cook breakfast.
If this works, we cook with free energy, and they grant our patents, 2nd law has been wrong all this time! We scale up as Konrad writes is possible becoming more & more effective at producing energy based on Konrad’s Gravity Gremlin Device (valve pp) & my GHE, then become rich energy czars “…by empirical experiment…” simply avoiding the dogma.
Trick,
More false statements? I have specifically indicated several times on this thread that the energy fluxes into and out of each box are not identical.
Ignoring conductive losses through the boxes and using arbitrary units here is what is happening –
At experiment start –
-box 1 10 units in 10 units out
-box 2 10 units in 1 unit out (box 2 is heating)
At experiment equilibrium
-box 1 10 units in 10 units out
-box 2 1 unit in 1 unit out (the gas in box 2 is now too hot to conductivly acquire energy from the heating tubes)
No tricks, no free energy, just the basic physics that the AGW calculations forgot to include.
HOT AIR RISES.
The most important thing radiative gases do in our atmosphere is provide cooling at altitude, just like box 1. Our planet has gravity. Our atmosphere has depth and a pressure gradient. The gases in our atmosphere can transport energy by physical movement. Conductivly cooling our atmosphere from the surface will not balance conductivly heating from the surface. These are all things either ignored or modeled incorrectly in AGW calculations.
Without radiative gases our atmosphere will cook. AGW is therefore physically impossible.
Trick, you have made a false claim about surface conduction. Next you have made a false claim about what I wrote on this thread. What’s next in the game of “Defend the Dogma”?
Konrad 12/16 12:22am: “Using cooling water at 1C and heating water at 60C I found the temperature differential between the boxes to be around 25C.”
The internet never forgets free energy Dogma.
[Moderation note] Accusing other of proposing perpetual motion machines always ends badly.
Mod 8:10pm – LOL, yeah “ends badly” for the proposer of the PMM so far in history. Been awhile since I last dealt with PMM (last time there was only 1 reservoir so it was obvious). Let’s see what develops in the 2 reservoir model, if anything. Whatever happens, I have no doubt 2nd law will rule. There is no hope for experiments or earth/atm. system going against 2nd law, as you know.
…because as always:
T*dS is greater than or equal delta Q.
Trick,
Why on earth would you misrepresent my position as proposing free energy? The empirical experiment breaks no such laws. It simply demonstrates the critical importance of the altitude of energy input and output to the average temperature of a gas column with a pressure gradient. This has not been modeled correctly in the AGW calculations you hold so dear.
[Reply] I think he’s trying to wind you up, so well done for your polite answer.
Konrad 10:14pm: “Why on earth would you misrepresent my position as proposing free energy?”
Misrepresent how? Well, would it be because Konrad did propose free energy up ‘til now? Trying to be constructive best I can. It is a chore.
Ok, in order to see if I missed something in Konrad’s 2Box (those pesky engineering changes happen all the time), I took the time to peruse the upper thread (in the stratosphere now where Stephen’s adiabatic processes have a hard go). Lest Konrad say I am one sided, the search can be replicated with “Konrad says” key words in IE 9 text search box under edit. Here are clips I found; Konrad says:
“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.
Flow rate through all tubing = 1 litre a minute
Cooling water temp = 1C
Heating water temp = 60C
Internal starting temp for each box = 20C
I have run the experiment with hot and cold gel packs. The results are the same.
Using 1C and 60C water in the cooling and heating tubes I found the temperature of box 2 almost double box 1 when the cooling tubes were placed at the same height as the heating tubes.”
******
After I point out issues with 2nd law, I find the test description changes 8:02pm to having Box 2 input power REDUCED! from 10units to 1 unit, I suppose just to wind me up, Konrad says:
At experiment start –
-box 1 10 units in 10 units out
-box 2 10 units in 1 unit out (box 2 is heating)
At experiment equilibrium
-box 1 10 units in 10 units out
-box 2 1 unit in 1 unit out (the gas in box 2 is now too hot to conductivly acquire energy from the heating tubes)
******
Cue the music, do-do-DO-do, I’m in the twilight zone again watching Konrad’s Gremlin crawl around in Box 2 instead of out on the wing.
By the way, you guys know the actor in that episode looking out the window? William Shatner.
Trick,
Still haven’t learned that your games with semantics won’t work?
[mod: please lose the tone –Tim] The cooling and heating tubes have common flow rates and hot and cold temperatures. They have the same available power to heat and cool. Yet the boxes end up at different average temperatures. This is because of gravity, gas pressure gradients and the physical movement of energy by convection. All the things your AGW flux equations don’t properly model.
An atmosphere without radiative gases cannot easily cool. Your claim that conductive cooling at the surface can match the energy entering the atmosphere by conductive heating and convection are false.
AGW believers forgot that hot air rises. Hilarious isn’t it?
Konrad – My semantics don’t matter but the 1st and 2nd law do matter.
Your 2 boxes are supposed to be identical right? Turn off cold water, heat them both by hot water flow up to say the temperature of your water heater ~180F at the probes, then turn off water letting both boxes cool to room temperature – will take the same amount of time give or take. Agree?
If that test works within reason, then understand their radiative, conductive, and convective net flux out is near enough reasonably the same. Then if as you write: “The cooling and heating tubes have common flow rates and hot and cold temperatures. They have the same available power to heat and cool.”
Then net flux-in is also the same in each, right?
So the total energy added in each box must be the same as you cannot create energy in either box no matter the arrangement: each box will rise to same Tavg. forcing out same energy in at equil. If you spatial and temporal sample the temperature in each box, properly computed Tavg. will be the same, not same at every location. Nothing in either box could disprove the commonly called GHE since it is based on 1st law & 2nd law.
Trick says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:18 am
“Your 2 boxes are supposed to be identical right? Turn off cold water, heat them both by hot water flow up to say the temperature of your water heater ~180F at the probes, then turn off water letting both boxes cool to room temperature – will take the same amount of time give or take. Agree?”
——————————————————————————————-
Trick,
Yes I agree that this would be the case. Conductive losses would be the same for each box, and the vertical distribution distribution of conductive loses would be the same. But this is not in any way relevant to the experiment.
To illustrate the point, for each box replace one panel of EPS foam with thin cling film that is a poor insulator. For box 1 replace the top. For box 2 replace the base. Heat both boxes to an internal temperature of 60C then let them cool. Now which box cools faster?
Is the answer –
A. Both boxes cool at the same rate
B. Box 1 cools faster
C. Box 2 cools faster
If truly identical, they both will cool to room temperature with same Tavg. curve. Some points faster, some slower, some same rate. Answer is all of the above if you mean local T; A. if you mean Tavg. Energy is neither created nor destroyed in either box.
You mean one box has a membrane but no insulation at the top. the other has a membrane but no insulation at the bottom, otherwise both are insulated all around?
Put another way you have enabled maximum conduction top or bottom.
Tim,
You are correct. The height at which energy loss occurs is critical to which box cools faster.
Trick,
The correct answer is B.
Box 1 cools faster. The reason is in box 1 cooling at the top sets up convective circulation, bringing higher temperature air more quickly in contact with the cling wrap causing the greatest conductive losses. The speed of conductive cooling is dependant on the temperature differential between the internal air in contact with the cling wrap and the external air. Due to convective circulation this differential will always be higher in box 1.
In box 2 convective circulation does not develop. And the speed of conductive cooling through the cling wrap base is limited to the speed of gas conduction within the box.
Trick, if you wish to check this empirically I would suggest building the insulated boxes at least 500mm tall. On box 2 it would be advisable to add 150mm legs to allow air circulation under the box. Wooden BBQ skewers may do the trick. The higher the temperature differential between internal to external temperatures at the start of the experiment, the more obvious the result will be.
Yes, the correct answer is B at some T point. So will A and C be correct at some other point. If energy is same in both boxes, and the flux-out is same for both boxes (identiical) then Tavg. curve will be exactly the same. 1st law always works.
Trick says:
January 16, 2013 at 4:33 am
“Yes, the correct answer is B at some T point. So will A and C be correct at some other point. If energy is same in both boxes, and the flux-out is same for both boxes (identiical) then Tavg. curve will be exactly the same. 1st law always works”
—————————————————————————–
Trick,
No, incorrect again. For the boxes modified with cling wrap in the manner described, while both box 1 & 2 start at the same temperature (60C) and end at the same temperature (room temperature), Box 1 will cool FASTER.
“and the flux-out is same for both boxes”
During the cooling period for box 1 the flux out is NOT the same for each box, and this is entirely the point. Gravity, the minor pressure gradient in each box and the speed of gas conduction being slower at this scale than the speed of convection ensures this. No laws of thermodynamics are being violated, distressed or abused.
This modification of the two box experiment with cling wrap is a good way for you to learn that conductive cooling at the base of the atmosphere cannot offset conductive heating at the base of the atmosphere.
The conductive heating and cooling at base of atm. must be the same or the 2nd law is violated. Tavg. in your boxes will go down the same curve if energy content is same and flux-out is same. 2nd law is no hope to get around. Sometimes real hard to measure, just talk to the guys thought they proved cold fusion, LOL. Need a good control volume & precise measurement to see it.
Trick says:
January 16, 2013 at 5:23 am
“The conductive heating and cooling at base of atm. must be the same or the 2nd law is violated. Tavg. in your boxes will go down the same curve if energy content is same and flux-out is same.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Trick,
For the boxes modified by cling wrap as described, box 1 will cool to room temperature faster. This is because the flux out is NOT the same until both boxes have reached room temperature.
Are you seriously suggesting that the gas in the two foam boxes modified by cling wrap in the manner described (box 1 with a cling wrap top, Box 2 with a cling wrap base) will cool at the same RATE to room temperature from a starting temperature of 60C? Could you please give me a yes or no answer to this.
Aaaah. The silence of the Sheep. No, Wait! Lambs, I’m sure it should be, lambs?
If the boxes have identical net flux-out properties (i.e. insulation such that unforced cool to room temp. at same rate from 60C) and start from same net flux-in, then just by definition Tavg. cooling rate will be the same. Each point will cool differently. If your mod.s change the box properties to be different, like Venus & Earth, then of course two different boxes Tavg. cooling rate will be different.
Trick says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm
“If the boxes have identical net flux-out properties….”
————————————————————————–
Trick,
I believe I gave a clear description of the alternate arrangement for the boxes. Tim confirmed the nature of the alterations with the cling wrap. What was being asked should have been very clear. The question was not “net flux-out”, the question was which of the boxes would cool faster. You could not see the correct answer.
I believe there may be two reasons you can not see the correct answer to this problem or the correct answer to the previous two box experiment. The first is not understanding the basic physics of convection. This is the critical failing in all AGW calculations. You will note that convection is only incorrectly represented as a linear flux in AGW calculations, they have never modeled the actual movement of atmospheric gases. Convection is a method of energy transfer involving the physical movement of gas or other fluid with a pressure gradient. In terms of net energy flow it is always one way. To explain why this will cause an imbalance in in conductive energy flux between the surface and the atmosphere is quite simple. The amount of energy transferred by conduction depends on the nature of the materials in conductive contact and the temperature differential between them.
Convection in the atmosphere brings the coldest air in contact with the hot surface during the day, maximising conductive flux.
Convection in the atmosphere brings the coldest air in contact with the cool surface during the night, minimising conductive flux.
The second reason you can not see the correct answer to this problem or the correct answer to the previous two box experiment may be that you can not believe that the promoters of AGW have made a mistake so basic.
So you can understand the most basic error the AGW promoters have made I will attempt to design a far simpler experiment you can build at home. No water pipes or valves or custom foam boxes. You will however need to acquire a dual probe thermometer with exposed thermocouple type sensors. Also a fridge. More soon.
Konrad 11:40pm – “You could not see the correct answer.”
I can see the correct answer: 1st & 2nd law. Konrad avoids both of them best he can.
It is Konrad explanations avoiding 1st & 2nd law that I can’t see: 1) A one-way energy valve, 2) conductive heating not equal conductive cooling at interface of 2 bodies at different T while in thermal contact with each other, 3) reduced input when Konrad faced with too much energy, 4) convection somehow removing energy from earth/atm. system to deep space, 5) as wayne elegantly stated “in=out” not being controlled for by Konrad.
At long last, Konrad does find a correct answer when he points out to the choir: “The amount of energy transferred by conduction depends on the nature of the materials in conductive contact and the temperature differential between them.”
Yes. See Fourier’s thermal conduction differential formula for solids and fluids, not strictly rising to law level as it is not strictly applicable to gas; need IGL in form of PV=density*R*T to more fully explore atm. kinetic theory of gas.
“… you can not believe that the promoters of AGW have made a mistake…”
I repeatedly ask Konrad who are these promoter guys exactly? If they really do exist, what mistake have they made that I cannot believe exactly? How can I contact them to find out why? No answer has been forthcoming from Konrad, just a modified experiment.
“I will attempt to design a far simpler experiment.”
Oooookayyyy….Here we go again. I await that new challenge. Look forward actually. Eagerly; while tapping my toe impatiently.
Trick says:
January 17, 2013 at 12:46 am
——————————————————-
Trick,
I think I should go through these one by one.
“I can see the correct answer: 1st & 2nd law.”
As the record shows (and not just on this thread) you were unable to answer correctly for which box in the original two box experiment got hotter. When asked about the clearly described alterations with the cling wrap you also got the wrong answer as to which box cooled quicker.
“1) A one-way energy valve”
Convection is one of three main forms of energy transfer. It works one way. Energy is transported from the high pressure zone of a fluid to the low pressures zone. Gas conduction can work to equalise the energy imbalance so created, but it is too slow compared to a diurnal convective heating cycle on planet earth.
“2) conductive heating not equal conductive cooling at interface of 2 bodies at different T while in thermal contact with each other”
If one of the bodies is a column of mobile GAS (you know, the thing that is not modeled correctly in the AGW calculations) and that column is in a gravity field then attempting to conductively cool the column at the base will be less effective that trying to conductively heat the column at the base. This is the basic physics of convection
“3) reduced input when Konrad faced with too much energy”
Not entirely sure what you are referring to here but if it is the ORIGINAL two box experiment, then the conductive energy input to box 2 is indeed reduced as the temperature in the box rises toward the temperature of the heating tubes. The amount of conductive energy flow is dependant on temperature differential between the tubes and the gas in the box.
“4) convection somehow removing energy from earth/atm. system to deep space”
I have never claimed or implied this. The main point I have been making all along over several threads is that IR to space from the atmosphere or conduction to the surface is the only way our atmosphere can lose energy. Remove radiative gases and the only way our atmosphere can cool is conductive contact with the surface. My experiments all show that conductive contact with the surface is ineffective at cooling the atmosphere compared conductive heating of the atmosphere from the surface. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would be far hotter than current temperatures. AGW is physically impossible. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability.
“5) “in=out” not being controlled for by Konrad”
I am not trying to measure the exact fluxes in and out of a gas column. My experiments just cover the physical mechanisms for energy flow into an out of a “non-radiative” atmosphere. Understanding conduction and convection for a gas column in a gravity field shows that if being heated and cooled at separated points at the base of the column, there will be an imbalance in energy flow into and out of the gas until the average temperature of the gas rises near to the temperature of the heat source. Very basic physics. Now what are some of those heat sources on earth? 50C+ desert sands, liquid magma…
“I repeatedly ask Konrad who are these promoter guys exactly?”
You have their textbooks 😉 Names like “Pierrehumbert” spring to mind. (I think he wrote “The farming of spherical chickens in a vacuum – for beginners.”
To Blog controllers – thanks for the patience and your system work. Now I get to learn about “Pierrehumbert”. Ha.
******
To Konrad – Nice try. Some swings hit, some misses, no cigar. Respectfully & constructively I trust, here are the issues Konrad needs to work on, not necess. that I am right just to help Konrad find conforming 1st & 2nd law is right & better more solid basis for debate:
“..unable to answer correctly in the original two box…you also got the wrong answer as to which box cooled quicker.”
I did answer correct to 1st & 2nd law in the orig. 2Box and again correctly in the cling wrap example. Konrad seems to think measuring a local temperature determines the temperature Tavg. of the whole box. One local T does not determine the box temperature Konrad, my answers are correct. If 1 T reading did so then you could measure the T outside your door and track that as global Tavg. You have to find Tavg. spatial and temporal sampled (Trenberthian term) for the whole box, both boxes, to determine which box is hotter or if they are the same Tavg., which they are if identical. I have written this before, hammer away at it & Konrad will get it.
“(Convection) works one way…..This is the basic physics of convection”
You miss what happens in natural atm. physics completely here. Please read up on convection. Even Stephen told you previously hot air rises, cools and descends. You need to see this to get the right answers. Think of a hot air balloon taking off and landing. Staying in system, no space journeys for hot air balloons. Ref. Bohren text has a whole section on it, take Konrad only a few minutes to get up to speed.
“3) reduced input when Konrad faced with too much energy..Not entirely sure what you are referring to here..”
Konrad reduced the Box 2 input from 10units to 1 unit in one attempt after I pointed out the extra energy issue.
“I have never claimed or implied (convection somehow removing energy from earth/atm. system to deep space”)”
Won’t search & quote you but you have written convection (one way!) cools the surface w/o returning energy. This means you think the energy must escape the earth/atm. system; convective energy does not escape the system; hot air balloons don’t rise to the moon, neither does convection. Convective energy stays in the system mix as it does in your 2Box. This is Stephen’s adiabatic cycle. I would settle for just stays in earth/atm. system moving internal heat around.
That Konrad could learn from a thorough study of control volumes, since energy is neither created nor destroyed in them, nothing matters moving heat in them, only thing that sets their Tavg. is flux in and flux out.
“My experiments all show that conductive contact with the surface is ineffective at cooling the atmosphere compared conductive heating of the atmosphere from the surface.”
In no way do Konrad experiments show this b/c Maxwell Demon is dead; the experiments conserve energy & comply with 2nd law as does the atm. It is your interpretation of the experiment ignoring Tavg. that becomes nonconforming with 1st and 2nd law.
“5) “in=out” not being controlled for by Konrad.
“I am not trying to measure the exact fluxes in and out of a gas column.”
That is exactly why Konrad interpretations are inconsistent with 1st and 2nd law while Konrad experiments follow them to the letter. Yes, you do need to control for and measure flux-in and flux-out to draw the correct conclusions.
“Now what are some of those heat sources on earth? 50C+ desert sands, liquid magma…”
Desert sand a heat source! ?? How? The source of desert sand heating is the day time sun, the atm. is in thermal contact with sand like bare feet, heat flows both ways depending on relative local T gradient to equil. The liquid magma is part of the natural flux density emission internal from the earth 0.1 W/m^2. Ok, add it to the forcing 239 + 0.1 = 239.1 no problem, get 239.1 in = 239.1 out and Tavg. incr. of something like 0.04K. Tavg. ~255.04K to radiate as required for equil. to deep space, usually the .04 is just rounded off. As I showed previously.
“Names like “Pierrehumbert” spring to mind. (I think he wrote “The farming of spherical chickens in a vacuum – for beginners.””
Not real familiar with his or her work, I will see what I can find while Konrad’s working on the next experiment design modification. At least I have a name now. But Konrad does not point out the mistake made or where. Would be helpful to know. And helpful if I had an editor…
Trick,
It seems you are going in circles.
“Stephen told you hot air rises, cools and descends.”
That would be your failure to understand right there. Without radiative cooling at altitude that hot air will not cool and decend. Adiabatic cooling does not count as it is matched by adiabatic heating on decent. Radiative gases are vital for continued vertical convective circulation below the tropopause. Without this circulation the atmosphere will heat.
There is no way around this Trick. Those claiming that radiative gases heat the atmosphere have not just got the basic physics of convection wrong, they failed to include them in their calculations at all.
The joy of this is that there will be no easy out for the AGW believers. No “unexpected negative feed backs”, no “new modeling of optical density says. .” Just failing to include the fact that hot air rises. Hilarious. Everyone on the planet will be able to understand just how foolish “climate scientists” were;)
Konrad 6:48am: “That would be your failure to understand right there. Without radiative cooling at altitude that hot air will not cool and decend.”
This statement shows Konrad’s lack of understanding the total energy of a polyatomic molecule. I listed the various ways the polyatomoc molecule’s total energy can change in collisions et. al. above 1/10 4:42am. Konrad isn’t absorbing or emitting either.
Once again, the N2 molecule total E = Etran + Erot + KEvib +PEvib + Eelectronic + mgh for 79% of atm.
For a hypothetical non-radiative atm., only KEvib, PEvib, Eelectronic are hypothetically turned off.
To conserve energy in hypothetical non-radiative atm. as mgh term increases i.e. “hot air rising”, Etran decreases. As Etran. decreases, the mean temperature of the molecules in the parcel decreases and it cools. This is the mechanism that generates the lapse rate as T(P). And the equil. Teq near surface cools from 288K to ~255K, no superheated atm. results.
I have ordered up Pierrehumbert 2010. Will see if “Principles of Planetary Climate” fails to include the fact that hot air rises as Konrad writes.
Trick says:
January 18, 2013 at 1:28 am
—————————————————–
Trick,
Yes, I remember your comment at 10/01/13 at 4.42, and I remember my response to it.
I will respond again, you provided some terms for mathematical variables but did not answer the question asked. You were asked to provide a plausible physical mechanism by which an “non-radiative” atmosphere could lose energy acquired by conductive contact with the surface. Much later in the thread you eventually tried to use conductive contact with the earth’s surface as a implausible physical mechanism by which a “non-radiative” atmosphere could lose energy.
You still have not described a plausible physical mechanism by which an “non-radiative” atmosphere could lose energy acquired by conductive contact with the surface.
What would happen immediately after the removal of radiative gases from our atmosphere. Note that the atmosphere would begin rapidly heating. It would not be in equilibrium.
Lets describe the physical mechanisms by which energy can enter a non radiative atmosphere….
1. The biggest inflow will be conduction and convection from the earth’s surface
2. A very small amount of incoming solar IR and SW intercepted by N2 and O2
3. A very small amount of out going IR from the surface intercepted by N2 and O2
Lets describe the physical mechanisms by which energy can exit a non radiative atmosphere….
1. A small amount of cooling by conduction with the earth’s surface
2. A very small amount of IR radiated to space by N2 and O2
Those supporting the AGW position claim that on removal of radiative gases our atmosphere would begin cooling to 33C below current temperatures. How is this even remotely possible?
Trick, could you please describe the PHYSICAL MECHANISM such an atmosphere could lose as much energy as it was acquiring by conductive contact with the earth’s surface? Empirical experiment shows that conductive cooling at the surface cannot be this mechanism.
And as you believe convective circulation would continue in a “non-radiative” atmosphere could you also describe the PHYSICAL MECHANISM by which such an atmosphere could lose energy at altitude which is vital for continued convective circulation?
Just to be clear, this “the N2 molecule total E = Etran + Erot + KEvib +PEvib + Eelectronic + mgh for 79% of atm” just will not do.
This “X amount of IR radiated to space by N2 and O2” is type of description what I am looking for.
Trick, if you can be bothered with the fiddly interface, ‘principles of planetary climate’ can be accessed through google books for free.
I certainly wouldn’t give Pierrehumbert tuppence for it. 😉
I would like to see this explanation as well.
tallbloke 10:49 am – Library syndicates deliver for free. I take it there is a history you have with the author. I like to hold a book in my hands, old habit, no Kindles for me. Yet.
Konrad 3:51am – “…you…did not answer the question asked.”
Yes, I did. But really you should not depend on any anonymous internet poster to be your teacher.
Konrad should seek the answers to his 1/10 9:19am “response” to my attempt at constructive education from couple authorities in the field.
Dr. Craig Bohren is one I’ve found, he spent over 33 years taking atm. thermo students with firmly ingrained immutably incorrect views and enlightening them applying the 1st principle real science & experiment. He knows the ropes & writes interestingly. His work is available at a library near Konrad. Reportedly he likes to answer atm. thermo questions, might still be doing so, go up his mountain for the answers you seek more efficiently. If not, libraries are better than the internet blogs, that’s why I go library-ing all the time. Learn from history.
I am more like a transponder echoing the atm. thermo science learnings of others and the correct 1st principle science stuff sticks with me so I want be constructive and in the process to learn more atm. science.
Max wants to see an explanation too. Look in the thread above, all the first principle based explanations from Bohren et. al. Konrad and Max seek are already there, no poster has substantively corrected any of mine AFAIK. Still, could be I am science incorrect, study up & if so, let me know where exactly. All interested should follow-up with Craig Bohren’s book(s), and the 1st principle based work of others.
******
“You were asked to provide a plausible physical mechanism by which an “non-radiative” atmosphere could lose energy acquired by conductive contact with the surface.”
Take out radiation ability from atm. molecules get optically thin atm, the Teq.=288K surface originally at ~396 W/m^2 radiates to deep space now TOA initially at 396 W/m^2 transiently, surface loses energy over time cooling to 239.1 W/m^2 with TOA at 239.1 W/m^2 at LTE forcing surface Teq. ~ 255.04K in perfect balance with sun. In=out.
“Much later in the thread you eventually tried to use conductive contact with the earth’s surface as a implausible physical mechanism by which a “non-radiative” atmosphere could lose energy.”
Your bare feet cool the surface patch below if patch below hotter than ~98.6F and your bare feet warm the surface patch below if patch below less T than ~98.6F. Your bare feet molecules are a proxy for atm. molecules by Fourier differential, w/different k.
“Lets describe the physical mechanisms by which energy can enter a non radiative atmosphere….
1. The biggest inflow will be conduction and convection from the earth’s surface”
The biggest 239 external inflow is from the sun, 0.1 inflow from earth. Conduction and convection are an internal system response w/energy flux density outflow to deep space at 239.1 W/m^2 spatial and temporal sampled by CERES Mar. 2000 to May 2004.
“2. A very small amount of incoming solar IR and SW intercepted by N2 and O2.”
“3. A very small amount of out going IR from the surface intercepted by N2 and O2”
No. Non-radiative MEANS non-radiative atm. molecules. The various molecules KEvib, PEvib, Eelectronic are hypothetically set=0 for N2 and O2 also.
“Lets describe the physical mechanisms by which energy can exit a non radiative atmosphere….
1. A small amount of cooling by conduction with the earth’s surface”
Cooling by conduction to exact equilibrium with heating by conduction as wherever hotter atm. T flows energy to cooler atm. T by thermal contact – same w/your bare feet proxy, different k.
“2. A very small amount of IR radiated to space by N2 and O2”
No, non-radiative.
“…on removal of radiative gases our atmosphere would begin cooling to 33C below current temperatures. How is this even remotely possible?”
It is plausible since surface at 239.1 W/m^2 radiates to deep space TOA at 239.1 W.m^2, surface Teq. at ~255.04K in balance long term equilibrium, atm. in thermal contact with surface equilibrates per Fourier conduction differential. On avg., patch of 255.04K surface below = atm. patch above at 255.04K, lapse rate of atm. reduces atm. T(P) from 255.04K to 0K up to where P=0. If local T above and local T below out of balance move heat from hot to cold, get in balance. Thermals, evap./transp. are an internal system response, moving heat around within system in balance.
“…could you please describe the PHYSICAL MECHANISM such an atmosphere could lose as much energy as it was acquiring by conductive contact with the earth’s surface?”
See description Fourier conduction differential, no need to invent anything new. Works for solids, fluids and w/PV=nRT for kinetic gases.
“describe the PHYSICAL MECHANISM by which such an atmosphere could lose energy at altitude which is vital for continued convective circulation?”
Hot air rises, mean velocity of parcel molecules fighting against gravity lose KE to PE, parcel cools, and descends. Vice-versa exactly.
“Just to be clear, this “the N2 molecule total E = Etran + Erot + KEvib +PEvib + Eelectronic + mgh for 79% of atm” just will not do.”
Konrad then argues against 1st law (and 2nd law elsewhere). There is no hope for that.
“This “X amount of IR radiated to space by N2 and O2” is type of description what I am looking for.”
X=0 in hypothetical non-radiative atm. Teq.~255.04K at surface, 239.1 surface radiation out to deep space TOA at 239.1 W/m^2, atm. thru optically thin atm. Teq~255.04K atm. at surface up to atm. T(P)=0 at P=0 TOA.
Simple, not easy. Nothing new. Check for typo.s.
Trick says:
January 18, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Konrad 3:51am – “…you…did not answer the question asked.”
Yes, I did. But really you should not depend on any anonymous internet poster to be your teacher.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Trick,
No, you have never answered the questions in the manner asked of you. The reason is of course you cannot. The basic physics is that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere.
“depend on an anonymous internet poster to be your teacher” Wow! You thought that one would fly? Even the most casual search of Rogers site should have taught you that I never call from “authority” as you do (Dr. Craig Bohren???). I do not rely on “anonymous internet posters”. I do my own work. I design and conduct my own empirical experiments. You do not. Am I anonymous? No. And I stand by my assertion that AGW is physically impossible.
But in terms of answers you have given us this little gem…
“-describe the PHYSICAL MECHANISM by which such an atmosphere could lose energy at altitude which is vital for continued convective circulation?-
Hot air rises, mean velocity of parcel molecules fighting against gravity lose KE to PE, parcel cools, and descends. Vice-versa exactly”
Priceless 😉
Konrad 4:44pm: “The reason is of course you cannot.”
I cannot only if the answer Konrad seeks is faith based; I base all my answers on 1st principle science I have learned from reliable teachers. Please show where I did not do so. Would be interesting to discuss; it is a talkshop.
“I never call from “authority” as you do…”
True, that is why Konrad misses a lot of 1st principle science as I noted above. Won’t repeat.
“I design and conduct my own empirical experiments.”
Konrad did provide pictures. And the experiments follow science to the letter. It is Konrad’s interpretations that do not follow 1st principle science; his interpretations just follow his own faith. This is fine for Konrad but not physical. Being a pilot means can fly an airplane; the airplane is useful being designed on 1st principle science and will repeat each flight even though Konrad et. al. pilots may not understand aero design principles. Others tried flying on faith; some did not repeat the attempt.
“And I stand by my assertion that AGW is physically impossible.”
A Konrad faith based assertion so far. Not backed by science or experiment.
“But in terms of answers you have given us this little gem…”
Something wrong with that gem based on science 1st principles? Not yet pointed out by Konrad. Just it doesn’t line up with Konrad’s faith.
Konrad – this is not the conversation I enjoy very much; I do not learn much from Konrad faith,
better to be constructive and point out issues (issues may not be problems) with science (mine or others) to correctly interpret Konrad experiments since you seem to be searching for the correct answers. Science is still being practiced, it is not perfected yet.
Trick,
I understand that you are not enjoying this conversation too much. I, on the other hand have found it very enlightening. You have been one of the staunchest defenders of the ADW religion here at the talkshop. You have brought out every trick in those book and have shown beyond reasonable doubt those you have faith in simply failed to include the role of gravity in their AGW calculations. They forgot that hot air rises. This is why you cannot give a reasonable answer to how an atmosphere without radiative gases can lose the energy it would acquire from conductive contact with the surface.
When pressed to explain how conductively heated gases could lose energy without radiation to space, you offered this –
“Hot air rises, mean velocity of parcel molecules fighting against gravity lose KE to PE, parcel cools, and descends. Vice-versa exactly”
– this gives me a clear indication of why you so desperately avoid giving this type of explanation and offer mostly half baked maths. It is now perfectly clear to anyone reading your response that you do not actually understand the physics. The explanation you gave clearly does not describe a method by which non radiative gases can lose energy. KE to PE does not indicate a loss of energy to space.
Despite all those text books you clearly do not understand physics. What does that tell you about the difference between those who believe in the religion of AGW and those that call it a hoax?
“A Konrad faith based assertion so far. Not backed by science or experiment-.”
You have shown you do not understand the basic physics of gases in a gravity field. How can you understand what the experiments are showing?
Konrad 1:03 am: “I, on the other hand have found it very enlightening.”
Good you are then winning your battle to venture further into science away from faith based interpretations.
“…you clearly do not understand physics.”
Good. Konrad gets back on physics. Seems to read like this is my problem: “The explanation you gave clearly does not describe a method by which non radiative gases can lose energy. KE to PE does not indicate a loss of energy to space.”
Did I ever write that KE to PE indicates a loss of energy to space? No. I wrote very clearly that thermals do not go to space. They stay in the system and move heat around. Hot air balloons do not rise to space.
“You have shown you do not understand the basic physics of gases in a gravity field.”
Konrad – Do you agree that the temperature of a parcel of air goes as the mean translational KE of its molecules? That the parcel doesn’t achieve escape velocity?
Do you agree the KE goes as the velocity of the molecules 1/2mv^2?
Do you agree each molecule loses velocity if happens to climb in altitude against gravity field? And vice versa exactly?
Do you agree the air parcels at TOA have lost almost all their KE (where your hand would feel T~0K) and possess almost all PE?
Do you agree this stated in reduced eqn. form is Total energy = constant = PE + KE?
Do you agree at surface ref. h=0 Total energy of any molecule = constant = 0 + KE?
Do you agree at TOA ref. P=0 Total energy of any molecule = constant = PE + 0?
“- this gives me a clear indication of why you so desperately avoid giving this type of explanation and offer mostly half baked maths.”
All my maths are good in full. No desperation, I remain calm. Show me exactly which math of mine is half-baked (explain what that means too, exactly) so I can respond.
“When pressed to explain how conductively heated gases could lose energy without radiation to space, you offered (thermals).”
Konrad is so confused, it is hard to even sort out. No, to lose energy to space, I wrote the bare feet proxy, the earth radiates. The non-radiating atm. is in full thermal contact with earth so they equilibrate, like bare feet with different k, cited Fourier conduction differential. Unless Konrad wants to go against 0th law too after trying to break the 1st & 2nd laws unsuccessfully.
Did I miss anything important? Konrad’s post is so rambling as to be hard to comment meaningfully. Calm down Konrad, learning should be fun. It is a big mistake to ignore adiabatic processes.
Trick, you ask “did I miss anything important? ”
Yes you have. You have totally missed the fact that convective circulation below the tropopause depends on radiative gases being present in the troposphere. You have totally miss the fact that conductive cooling at the base of an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient cannot offset conductive heating at the base of the atmosphere. You have totally missed the fact that radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
konrad,
I’m not sure how certain that is or to what degree. Wind works pretty well.
Tim,
Strong vertical convective circulation in the troposphere is the most powerful driver of weather systems. I have covered the role of mechanical convection in an earlier post. I know its hard to believe but the AGW team never properly modeled a non-radiative atmosphere. They just modeled radiative flux in and out of an “earth” with a combined atmosphere and surface. They never modeled a separate atmosphere wit depth, moving gases and a pressure gradient.
Konrad 2:30 am: Where are all those in your 1:03am post exactly? Calm down, go slow. Tim is right about winds. Convection is dependent on the temperature/pressure differences not radiative gases per se.
For conductive cooling to be not equal conductive heating at thermal contact of two bodies you fail the 2nd law. And the 0th.
For radiative (infrared active) gases to cool the whole atm. need them to suck in & destroy energy failing the 1st law. No answers to my questions?
Uh, Trick, small question, do you happen to know what the thermal conductivity of air is?
Konrad: “You have totally missed the fact that convective circulation below the tropopause depends on radiative gases being present in the troposphere.”
Your exactly correct there Konrad. Without a doubt. All except the bottom layer would stagnate, isothermal for that upper portion and rather hot. Exactly the same thing happens to a heat pipe (solar hot water panels use them) if the thermal energy at the top is not removed. That is also what gives us an environmental lapse rate instead of zero lapse.
You’ve got it, it is the 17 and especially the 80 wm-2 in the thermal/latent convective process that makes out atmosphere rather unique or it would be warmer, not colder and GHGs are vital to perform those two vital roles, one at the bottom, the other at the top. But it is the latent heat by convection that is the great mover.
And Konrad, through all of this back and forth between you and Trick, I believe you have given me one of the missing hidden answers between Earth and Venus’s atmospheres. Of course they have different parameters but the one difference is the state change in water vapor, the 80 wm-2 that without it the earth would be much warmer, not by the GHG’s. All of the planets have plenty of GHG’s to perform the roles at the bottom and top, if not there lapse rates would not make sense and they do down to the molecular composition of each.
What I need to do is ‘warm’ the Earth up by the 80 wm-2 as if the Earth was still identical elsewhere, but just dry, and then try to compare the two planets now with both on an equal footing. Thanks. That might be why I could never quite get everything to gel.
Calm? But of course Trick! I’m still not frustrated, distracted or snowed even after 500 comments on this thread 😉
As to the laws of thermodynamics I have no problem. You and those who believe in AGW are just not using them correctly when modeling conductive energy transfer between the surface and atmosphere. Anyone who reads this exchange in the future will see the numerous times I explained to you that to model this exchange properly you need to run iterative calculations on many discrete air parcels. The atmosphere is not a single mathematical layer as used in AGW pseudo science calculations. The gases in our atmosphere move.
Conductive energy transfer depends on temperature differential. Gravity keeps cooler gases in contact with the surface. Surface Tmax causes a greater energy exchange with the atmosphere than surface Tmin.
As to your claim that radiative gases are not necessary for convective circulation in the troposphere, the original two box experiment shows how critical energy loss above the level of energy input is to continued convective circulation. Where does all the strong convection occur in our atmosphere? Below the tropopause. Where can almost all of the most powerful radiative H2O be found in our atmosphere. Below the tropopause.
Without radiative gases convective circulation would stall in the atmosphere. When convection stalls the atmosphere above the near surface layer will heat to match land Tmax. Radiative gases are vital for cooling our atmosphere.
Can I ask why you are so allergic to empirical experiment? You have bought many text books. Would you be prepared to buy a dual probe thermometer and conduct an empirical experiment? I can design you a simple experiment that does not require all the tubes and water. I only used the water tubes because I felt the Peltier chip version with Qcell insulation was too hard for others to replicate. Would you agree to try an empirical experiment if I made it easy to build? The electronic thermometer should cost under $100.
Wayne,
Sorry for not responding sooner. Friends who brought round laphraigh, trashy euro techno and litres of radiative gases have distracted me. Normal service will be restored shortly 😉
“All except the bottom layer would stagnate, isothermal for that upper part and rather hot”
I’m impressed, although my expectations have been lowered somewhat by Trick. You have clearly thought this through. You have evidently modeled the 3D gas volume in your head. I did the same, but as the answer was so different for what “consensus science” said, I just had to check by empirical experiment. AGW appears to be physically impossible. Strangely there are a few sceptics who are going to be even more embarssed than the AGW believers.
For a “non-radiative” atmosphere there would indeed be dramatic temperature fluctuations near the surface. While I have indicated that the temperature higher up would initially be driven by land surface Tmax, other factors need to be considered. N2 & O2 do absorb and emit a very small amount of EM radiation. Conductive cooling by contact with the earth surface is useless for cooling an atmosphere without radiative gases. Just how hot could our atmosphere get without H2O and CO2?
Konrad 8:50am – Good, stay calm.
“Can I ask why you are so allergic to empirical experiment?”
I’m not at all. I’m allergic to interpretations of experiments not based on 1st principles. Like those that confuse Tlocal with Tavg. and then interpret one box is hotter when basic physics clearly shows the identical boxes are at equal Tavg. with identical energy in=out for both.
Then, based on faith and that misunderstanding, incorrectly proclaim “Conductive cooling by contact with the earth surface is useless for cooling an atmosphere without radiative gases” when the 0th law, 2nd law and Fourier conduction differential, experiment, human experience and observation show otherwise. A quick reasonable science est. shows atm./surface would on avg. temporal and spatial sampled equilibrate in under 3 years at global near surface Teq. 255.04K (the ~.04 from magma et. al. geotherms).
Konrad reverts to his deep faith to draw the somewhat softened conclusion “AGW appears to be physically impossible” w/o understanding text atm. physics with and without infrared active gas. To move on to the much harder AGW science in frequency domain, it is logical for Konrad to get the basic science physics understood first.
I’m interested enough to discuss and learn from the science not Konrad’s faith. Still no Konrad answers to my questions above btw. And the library syndicate I use has “pulled” the ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ text for me and it is in transit. Will see if hot air rising is ignored and just not using laws of thermodynamics correctly as Konrad writes.
Trick, do you know what the thermal conductivity of air is?
Non-zero.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Air: 0.024
Asphalt: 0.75
Clay (dry to moist): 0.15 to 1.8
Clay (saturated): 0.6 ~ 2.5
Concrete (light to stone): 0.1 to 1.7
Earth (dry): 1.5
Soil (w/ organic matter): 0.15 ~ 2.0
Soil (saturated): 0.6 ~ 4.0
Sand (dry): 0.15 ~ 0.25
Sand (moist): 0.25 ~ 2.0
Sand (saturated): 2.0 ~ 4.0
Water: 0.58
Rock: 2.0 ~ 7.0
Air is what you would call a thermal insulator, the only surface materials with comparably low conductivity is snow which goes as low as 0.025, though ice is around 2.18.
Not sure what the average thermal conductivity of the surface is, but given all the water at 0.58 and the balance of sand/soil/earth/clay/rock on the land, I’d say it’s probably a good deal higher than that of air.
I’ll also note that you’re using assumptions of thermal equilibrium as a reason to claim the air will be cooled by the ground as much as it is warmed by it.
Obviously the surface is still going to be receiving energy from the sun, while the atmosphere in this hypothetical scenario will not, nor will the atmosphere be receiving energy from the surface radiation, and similarly it will not be able to transmit surface radiation to the ground, nor to outer space.
Though the hypothetical breaks down for numerous reasons, one of which being that without the supposed ability of the atmosphere to add energy to the surface, there is not enough “extra” vibrational kinetic energy for the ground to undergo both radiative and conductive transfers at the same time, as I explained in the emissivity thread.
Though, this scenario actually has an unexpectedly useful illustrative ability: it shows that the use of 396 W/m^2 for surface emissions into a radiantly active atmosphere is absurdly wrong.
In the case of an impossible non-radiant atmosphere the ground could indeed radiate 396 W/m^2 directly into space if we ignore conductive losses!
“In the case of an impossible non-radiant atmosphere the ground could indeed radiate 396 W/m^2 directly into space if we ignore conductive losses!”
Ground would at first be ~396 after the theft of atm. radiative ability. So would TOA. 240 in can’t support that 396 unencumbered output. Two bodies in thermal contact will equilibate, the only real question is how long it would take. Windy at first, would become less so later on.
Technically it would be 299 W/m^2 because I’ve confirmed that no, you can not ignore that the same vibrational energy is responsible for radiation and conduction, so yes, you have to subtract those losses from the potential radiation.
Trick says:
January 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm
“I’m allergic to interpretations of experiments not based on 1st principles. Like those that confuse Tlocal with Tavg. and then interpret one box is hotter when basic physics clearly shows the identical boxes are at equal Tavg. with identical energy in=out for both.”
————————————————————————————
Trick,
because you don’t understand conduction and convection in gas you keep giving the wrong answer. Conductive flow will in an out of a gas column in a gravity field via surface conduction at its base will not be equal. The AGW calculations that model the atmosphere as a single mathematical layer are quite simply garbage. The atmosphere has depth and the gases in it transport energy by physical movement.
Here as promised is a little experiment you or anyone reading this later can build to find out just how totally wrong you are.
What you see in the image are two small EPS foam tubes. Internal volume is 75 x 75mm by 200mm high.
Tube 1 has a top with cling film replacing the foam.
Tube 2 has a base with cling film replacing the foam.
Each tube has a battery pack and a small 5V computer fan blowing across the outside of the cling film.
Tube 1 has small legs on one side to tilt it to around 5 degrees off vertical. This helps convective flow start against the friction of the internal walls.
Tube 2 has 50mm legs to allow its fan to move air freely across the cling wrap
You will note that there are multiple thermometer probe entry points in each tube.
The experiment has been scaled to fit in a refrigerator. Over 200mm the speed of gas conduction is well out of scale to a real atmospheric column, but the imbalance in conductive energy flows between the two tubes is still very clear.
To conduct the experiment first equalise the internal temperature of each tube to room temperature by turning each tube cling film down and running the fans for 15 minutes. Use a thermometer probe position equal distance from the cling film for each tube.
Now orientate the tubes so tube 1 has cling film at the top and tube 2 has cling film at the base. Place them on a shelf in a refrigerator with the fans running and close the door with the thermometer outside. The fans ensure air in the refrigerator does not stagnate need the cling wrap cooling zones on each tube. If your refrigerator has wire shelves, place a plate under each tube.
Use the probe differential button on the thermometer to observe the temperature differential between the tubes develop as they cool from room temperature. Due to the small size of the tubes compared to the speed of gas conduction, maximum differential should be achieved in 2 minutes and decrease thereafter.
Remove the tubes from the refrigerator and allow them to equalise to room temperature again, move the thermometers to new positions and repeat the cooling run. Do this a number of times to build up a picture of the temperature differential at various distances from the cling wrap in each tube at the 2 minute mark.
With a room temperature of 25C and a refrigerator temperature of 7C here are some typical temperature differentials at the 2 minute mark
175mm from the cooling surface – tube 1 2.0C cooler than tube 2
100mm from the cooling surface – tube 1 1.3C cooler than tube 2
25mm from the cooling surface – tube 2 0.3C cooler than tube 1
Tube 1 with the cooling surface at the top cools faster. This is because cooling from the top of a gas column in a gravity field sets up a convective flow bringing the hottest gases in contact with cooling surface. This maximises temperature differential at the cooling interface and maximises conductive energy flow. In box 2 convection does not occur and gravity keeps the coolest gas in contact with the cooling interface. This minimises temperature differential at the cooling interface and minimises conductive energy flow.
The experiment gives clear results even when compromised by being scaled to fit in a domestic refrigerator. If you want truly dramatic results try insulated tubes 2m tall in a commercial cool room.
Now if instead you want the garbage AGW math to work you can do that too. You simply need to remove the factor not modelled in the AGW calculations, which of course is GRAVITY. Simply turn the boxes on their side when placing them in the refrigerator and they will cool at the same rate.
Trick, you commented-
“Konrad reverts to his deep faith to draw the somewhat softened conclusion “AGW appears to be physically impossible” w/o understanding text atm. physics with and without infrared active gas.”
I will leave “faith”, “Consensus” and “The Cause” to the acolytes of AGW because these things, just like belief in AGW, have nothing to do with science.
My conclusions about the AGW hoax have not softened. AGW is physically impossible. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability. As the experiment above shows conductive cooling the atmosphere at surface level will not offset conductive heating at surface level. Energy loss at altitude is critical for convective circulation and cooling the atmosphere. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would cook..
I would ask if you now have the common decency to acknowledge that my understanding of atmospheric physics is better than yours.
Max 6:34am: “Technically it would be 299 W/m^2..”
Only when global near surface Tavg. would be between 288K and on way to 255.04K by surface cooling to space thru optically thin atm. – intermediate transiently on way to balance in=out at ~240. Cite 1st law.
Though thermo doesn’t say much about transient conditions, double check Gibbs & Maxwell always started off by writing “Only macro considered and let the system settle to equilibrium, then: insert rest of paper or book.”
Still true today.
Konrad 7:43am: I’m still practicing science, not perfected it yet. So is Boeing Co. et. al.
“I would ask if you now have the common decency to acknowledge that my understanding of atmospheric physics is better than yours.”
A good start would be for Konrad to show his bona fides & answer my list of questions 2:05am above. That would start to bring an answer in focus to that which is asked by Konrad. Remember I’m just an anon. internet poster; what counts for Konrad is to line up his experiment interpretations with the thermo grand master work & their interpretations.
Taking off in an experimental aircraft design on faith it will safely return the pilot to earth, is not the most safe tradition in history of aero. science. Boeing Co. currently learning more about 787 battery design. We all can learn, make it fun. Learning should not ever end for we humans. Costly for Boeing & not so much fun for the engineers going 24/7 at the moment.
No Trick, if the surface was at 289 K and undergoing conduction AND radiation, then both methods of heat transfer involve the same vibrational energy modes.
It is literally impossible for the surface to emit at full power and have any energy left for any other sort of additional heat transfer.
Unless you’d like to propose an extra fund of vibrational energy which doesn’t change the temperature and only takes part in conductive/convective/evaporative losses?
Max. 289K implies 390W/m^2 radiation. Plus convection and conduction and evaporation totals (say) 500W/m^2
Downwards we get 170W/m^2 from the Sun and 330W/m^2 from warm water vapour and co2 (mostly not far above the surface), totals 500W/m^2
By the time you get to the TOA, the colder water vapour and co2 emits 240 to space.
And the problem is?
P = εσA(Th⁴) is what you use for a surface radiating into a vacuum, and it is also what you can use for a surface radiating into an ambient environment at least three times cooler than it is.
P = εσA(Th⁴ – Tc⁴) is what you use for a surface radiating into an ambient environment of a similar but cooler temperature, like the ground radiating into the atmosphere.
The 390 or 396 W/m^2 assumes the ambient temperature is 1/3rd the emitting temperature or less.
The atmosphere is not that cold, so that is definitely not the correct value to use.
Similarly, there is no extra fund of vibrational energy available for the 500 W/m^2 if the surface is 289 K.
Temperature of a solid measures the kinetic energy right?
The translational and rotational motion of molecules in a solid is functionally null, so temperature must be measuring the vibrational modes, thermal radiation is one manner in which that vibrational energy fund can contribute to heat transfer, it is not the only way.
“No Trick, if the surface was at 289 K and undergoing conduction AND radiation, then both methods of heat transfer involve the same vibrational energy modes.”
This debate comes back to what is the “surface” defined as, we discussed this before. I still hold we don’t know the avg. surface dirt/water temperature only that the near surface air global Tavg. is ~ 289K and varies w/time.
The dirt/water temperature surface Tavg. is not measured so is averages whatever it needs to be for the air to global avg. ~289K near the dirt surface couple meters up or so.
And gives me a timely soapbox to say even the air Tavg. is a bit bogus though generally accepted like GAAP, as can’t strictly average temperatures. Have to really temporal and spatial sample avg. the W/m^2 flux and convert to Tavg., more precise but not a game changer.
Can add mass, can’t strictly add temperature; combining two equal 106F pots of water will be twice as massive but won’t boil.
Again:
“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.
[snip]
There is widespread agreement among the other
estimates that the global mean surface upward LW
radiation is about 6 W m−2 higher than the values
in KT97 owing to the rectification effects described
in the “Spatial and temporal sampling” sidebar. We
adopt a value of 396 W m−2, which is within 2.1 W m−2
of all estimates but is dependent on the skin tem-
perature and surface emissivity (Zhang et al. 2006)
and can not be pinned down more accurately. To
compute the land and ocean contributions, we use
the ISCCP-FD ratios.” ~TFK2009
It should be of course, P = εσA(Th⁴-Tc⁴) due to the whole “there is an atmosphere which has temperature too close to the surface to treat it as though it is emitting into a far colder ambient environment” thing.
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c1
“For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:
P/A = εσT⁴
where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form:
P = εσA(T⁴-Tc⁴)
The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.” ~R. Nave
For Max – One free trace thru the references.
TFK09:
“At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody
emission at 15°C…”
“If we define a global mean as Tg…
“For 1961–90, Jones et al. (1999) estimate that Tg is 287.0 K…”
Jones et. al 1999:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3C0829%3ARTCSTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This paper references for Temperature data station siting: “UKMO, 1969: Observers Handbook. U.K. Meteorological Office”
Click to access OH_Appendix1.pdf
p. 185 Installed station “Thermometer screens: Standard exposure…originally designed by Thomas Stevenson. This is erected….so that…thermometers are 1.25 m above the ground.”
Jones et. al. 1999 Table1 total 12,092 stations measuring mean temperature. As we now know the stations vary in siting “goodness”, but I have yet to see one fallen over measuring dirt temperatures.
Max – The station thermometers are just not in the dirt, they are “at the surface” held in the air measuring air temperature. The nearby dirt is at whatever temperature required for the thermometer air temperature reading.
“Other estimates of radiative and surface fluxes
have been derived using satellite data, including
those made by the ISCCP (Rossow and Duenas 2004;
Zhang et al. 2004) and CERES (Loeb et al. 2000, 2007,
2009; Wielicki et al. 2006) groups. Zhang et al. (2004)
produce the ISCCP-FD version of radiative fluxes
based upon ISCCP cloud data and other data in an
advanced radiative code. This has been produced in
3-h steps globally on a 280-km grid from July 1983
onward. They estimate, based on comparisons with
ERBE, limited CERES, and some surface data, that
the errors are of the order of 5–10 W m−2 at TOA
and 10–15 W m-2 at the surface.” ~TFK2009, 3rd page
“Several atlases exist of surface f lux data, but
they are fraught with global biases of several tens
of watts per meter squared in unconstrained VOS
observation-based products (Grist and Josey 2003)
that show up, especially when net surface flux fields
are globally averaged. These include some based on
bulk flux formulas and in situ measurements, such as
the Southampton Oceanographic Centre (SOC) from
Grist and Josey (2003), WHOI (Yu et al. 2004; Yu and
Weller 2007), and satellite data, such as the HOAPS
data, now available as HOAPS version 3 (Bentamy
et al. 2003; Schlosser and Houser 2007). The latter
find that space-based precipitation P and evapora-
tion E estimates are globally out of balance by about
an unphysical 5%. There are also spurious variations
over time as new satellites and instruments become
part of the observing system.
Zhang et al. (2006) find uncertainties in ISCCP-FD
surface radiative fluxes of 10–15 W m−2 that arise from
uncertainties in both near-surface temperatures and
tropospheric humidity. Zhang et al. (2007) computed
surface ocean energy budgets in more detail by com-
bining radiative results from ISSCP-FD with three
surface turbulent flux estimates, from HOAPS-2,
NCEP reanalyses, and WHOI (Yu et al. 2004). On
average, the oceans surface energy flux was +21 W m−2
(downward), indicating that major biases are present.
They suggest that the net surface radiative heating
may be slightly too large (Zhang et al. 2004), but also
that latent heat flux variations are too large.” ~TFK2009, 4th page
“To compute these effects more exactly, we have taken the surface skin temperature from the NRA at T62 resolution and
6-h sampling and computed the correct global mean surface radiation from (1) as 396.4 W m−2 .” ~TFK2009, 5th page
Note that NRA is the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis, and surface skin temperature is the term typically given to the direct measurement of the ground temperature by IR thermometers.
“We
adopt a value of 396 W m−2, which is within 2.1 W m−2
of all estimates but is dependent on the skin tem-
perature and surface emissivity (Zhang et al. 2006)
and can not be pinned down more accurately. To
compute the land and ocean contributions, we use
the ISCCP-FD ratios.
[…]
However, after the adjustments noted above for
LH and better accounting for the aerosols and water
vapor in the absorbed solar radiation, our revision
estimates are 333 and 63 W m−2 for the downward
and net LW.” ~TFK2009, 9th page
Trick,
will you at least concede now that the vertical position of conductive cooling alters the cooling rate of a gas column in a gravity field? That cooling the column from the top is more effective than cooling the column from the bottom?
Trick: “Max – The station thermometers are just not in the dirt, they are “at the surface” held in the air measuring air temperature. The nearby dirt is at whatever temperature required for the thermometer air temperature reading.”
The ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface. It’s around 2C warmer on average than the air above it.
This isn’t going to give the extra 110W/m^2 worth of power required to account for evaporation and thermals on top of 390W/m^2 outgoing longwave. Max is right, something doesn’t add up. In a big way. I think it’s time to acknowledge that there is a problem.Wait a minute, too early in the morning to think straight. It does add up.
Max:390 up as LW temp 288K. 500 down in SW+LW. 110 spare for evap and thermals. What is the problem?
Konrad said:
“That cooling the column from the top is more effective than cooling the column from the bottom?”
Pressure gradient ?
My contention is that the cooling at the bottom is constrained by the pressure at the bottom and the fact that replacement energy is constantly being returned to the bottom by the descending portion of the adiabatic loop.
AGW proponents are aware of the issue and call it DWIR but I think it is compression effects.
Konrad 6:12am asks: “…will you at least concede now that the vertical position of conductive cooling alters the cooling rate of a gas column in a gravity field?”
Inventing the Trick (trademark) ½ m^2, 10kg. finned but mostly flat metallic device (Codename A) held at 100K by external refrigeration (disconnected upon column insertion) capable of being inserted into an equilibrium earthian atm. gas column (usual adiabatic theory set up) at any height to tropopause. Effective defined as the time it takes for the column & A to equilibrate, less time more effective, more time less effective.
Answer depends on two initial condition assumptions as usual.
If assume the equilibrium gas column of interest can do work on the air column above and below, then A will have X(P) effect placed at any height, X varying from high at h=0 to low at h=tropopause.
If assume the equilibrium gas column of interest can do no work on the air column above and below, then A will have Y(T,P) effect placed at any height, Y varying from high at h=0 to low at h=tropopause.
Being properly caffeinated at the moment (unlike tb), I may have that right, any issues?
Max 4:58am: “..surface skin temperature..”
I did one free ref. investigation. You are on your own now. I’m certain surface skin temperature means air thermometers measuring 1.25 metres above the dirt. Look ‘em all up.
Trick: http://tigge.ecmwf.int/tigge/d/show_object/table=parameters/name=skin_temperature/levtype=sfc/
“Temperature of the surface at radiative equilibrium. It forms the interface between soil and atmosphere.”
Click to access baseline-LST-v2.0.pdf
That goes over the whole process of obtaining the land surface temperature, not the temperature a meter off the ground, not the temperature of a layer of air at the surface, specifically the temperature OF THE SURFACE ITSELF.
TFK2009 notes the use of various products like the GOES one there, and I specifically quoted several times where the specific land temperature is being talked about.
Flat out, if you continue to claim TFK2009 did not run their calculations using the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE OF THE PHYSICAL SURFACE OF THE GROUND as 289 K, you are now going to be [snip], unless for some reason you’ve managed to lose the ability to see what I write.Full stop.
“Max:390 up as LW temp 288K. 500 down in SW+LW. 110 spare for evap and thermals. What is the problem?” ~tallbloke
It isn’t 500 down, the LW down only reduces the 390 up, it does not add to the surface energy budget.
The 110 from evaporation and thermals has to be added to the total losses for a surface at 288 K.
You don’t start with P=εσ(289⁴) and then add P=εσ(277⁴), the second value there is energy that originally came from the first value, you can not add them together, full stop.
The energy coming down from the atmosphere originated at the surface, unless the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then the only possible result of this energy returning to the surface would be to reduce emissions into the atmosphere accordingly.
Thus you use P=εσ(289⁴ – 277⁴) and you get 62 W/m^2, not 396 W/m^2.
Now the surface wouldn’t be losing enough energy to balance incoming solar though, what a pain.
If you take the evap/therm to be 99 and solar to be 161 though, 161 W/m^2 down – 99+62 W/m^2 up would be a surface balance.
The atmosphere absorbing 78 W/m^2 from the sun directly and emitting 78 W/m^2 to space would then give 161+78 in at TOA and 161+78 out at TOA.
Unfortunately that breaks down because there isn’t a way to explain the surface being over 255 K.
…
Rather than inventing a method to justify a bad model, I suggest identifying the flaws in that calculation (i.e. stupid ideas like the energy the atmosphere receives from the ground being added to the energy the ground receives from the sun and then a temperature could be calculated from that directly) and producing a better model.
Clearly the constant illumination model TFK2009 uses is broken if it requires one to treat the atmosphere as a source of around twice as much energy as the sun provides.
The arguments made seem plausible, and it is easier to doubt yourself rather than professionals.
Nonetheless, the arguments are bunk, they are utterly unjustifiable, and the manner in which they are readily adjusted to seemingly work around whatever objections are offered is further proof that they are invalid.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
A solid argument will not need to be constantly propped back up every time a pole is yanked out.
Trick is a perfect example of this with his “the 289 K is the temperature a meter off the ground, the surface temperature is then clearly whatever is required to explain away the seemingly sensible point you’re making, Max”, so I showed that they state “the 289 K is the surface temperature from which emissions are calculated” to which he digs through the references and plucks a source used by what I think was the KT97 paper to justify his claim.
I will be pleasantly surprised and gain new respect for him if later I find a post where he admits he was incorrect about the definition of “surface skin temperature” as used by Trenberth et all.
The worst part of this though, is how those sorts of argument even got tallbloke to go back and doubt his earlier post.
Ohhh, ok, gotcha, I’ll do that. I had it saved in case I needed to shorten it, kill the extra copies, I didn’t see any confirmation signs that it went in.
[Reply] Done. WordPress is quirky, and when it tosses your post into spam, it just vanishes from your view. Please, research, reference, and annotate a post on your formula for emission into a warm atmosphere. Find empirical results if possible, and write it all up. It is an important contribution if you can make it stick.
Max 4:14pm: “..(Trick) plucks a source used by what I think was the KT97 paper to justify his claim.”
No, I cited & quoted all from TFK09, just search the doc. They go back a long ways even in TFK09.
I’m certain Tg=Tavg. is ~287K that will be traceable to near surface air temp. up 1.25 m from surface, 12000+ Stevenson screen or not stations. There are soil temperatures measured also – why are they listed different than skin on ECMWF? I’m not interested to research those like you are but quickly checking the ECMWF site you listed I did find more info. And even contact info. to e-mail them & ask questions.
Follow your interest deeper, savor the hunt, and let me et. al. know what you find about “…surface skin temperature…”. Is it at ~287K? I doubt it now. If it turns out soil, then probably not 287K used in TFK09, what is that skin temperature exactly, in Kelvin globally?
I can’t do ALL the ref. reading work or respond everything, LOL. Cuts into my bar time.
Trick, again, it is a fact that the TFK2009 paper uses data from things like satellite measurements of surface temperature, that data is a “surface skin temperature” or “land skin temperature”, and it means “the temperature of the frickin’ ground”… not a meter off of the ground.
I didn’t say you pulled the source from the KT97 paper, I said the source you used is referenced as being one they had used in the past, it is not listed as one of the main sources they used for calculating the surface temperature in the actual body of the paper, ctrl-f, check it out for yourself like I did.
No one anywhere ever has called “temperature measured in a stevenson screen” the “surface skin temperature”, that is exclusively a term used in remote sensing fields, it means “the temperature of a surface in the viewing window of an infrared thermometer” for the record.
I will whip it up, tallbloke.
Trick says:
January 21, 2013 at 2:36 pm
————————————————–
BAFFLEGAB!
Rog, Tim & Max,
To understand the game of Bafflegab, just follow this link, this is a must read 😉
Click to access Nursing%201982.pdf
[Reply] Bookmarked. 🙂
Max™ says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:14 pm
“The arguments made seem plausible, and it is easier to doubt yourself rather than professionals.
Nonetheless, the arguments are bunk, they are utterly unjustifiable, and the manner in which they are readily adjusted to seemingly work around whatever objections are offered is further proof that they are invalid.”
“The worst part of this though, is how those sorts of argument even got tallbloke to go back and doubt his earlier post.”
——————————————————————
Max,
Welcome to the game of Bafflegab! But don’t get distracted, snowed or frustrated. Trick is actually doing great service by putting on display just how little real physics is involved in the AGW claims.
It’s basic Physics? The science is settled? Bafflegab!
Don’t get sucked in to doubting yourself. Just follow the scientific method and logic. AGW fails every empirical test.
1. DWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That rules out 71% of the earth’s surface from being affected by “back radiation” from CO2. The empirical experiment to check this is easy.
2. Ignore gravity like the AGW believers do and treat the atmosphere as a single mathematical layer or “body” as Trick does. The answer is still that CO2 cools our atmosphere. Why? Because CO2s ability to warm the atmosphere by intercepting outgoing IR is a inverse logarithmic function of its concentration in the atmosphere. However CO2s ability to radiate to space energy the atmosphere has acquired from conduction and the release of latent heat is a linear function of its concentration in the atmosphere. Even failing to consider gravity, CO2 will become a coolant after around 50ppm. This too can be shown by empirical experiment.
3. Model gravity and the pressure gradient correctly and you will find that radiative gases are vital for continued convective circulation in the troposphere. Without energy loss to space above the altitude of energy input our atmosphere will heat. When you model the atmosphere with depth and a pressure gradient the net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0ppm. The critical importance of emitting IR to space above the altitude of energy input into the atmosphere can also be demonstrated by empirical experiment.
Where are the empirical experiments that prove AGW? Nowhere, that’s where.
AGW is physically impossible. If you find Tricks defence of AGW unconvincing, just think how ridiculous other AGW believers are going to get in the near future. These are the last days of the hoax. Soon only the most fervent believers will be left. Those that have any chance of saving career or reputation are already trying to slink away, foolishly hoping for an escape to “Black Carbon”, “Biocrisis” or “Sustainability”. Those that can’t escape the permanent record of the Internet are going nuts. Fools like Gleick, Lewandowsky and Mann are now so far around the bend they can no longer see daylight.
Guaranteed to come in handy Konrad! Bookmarked and permanently stored away. 🙄
Rog, the above post at 11.44pm contains an error. Please delete and replace with this:
You know things make a lot more sense for my hypothesis if the effect of CO2 is nominally cooling. It goes like this:
i) CO2 in an atmosphere allows more radiative energy out to space than does a less radiatively active atmosphere.
ii) Atmosphere cools and so contracts.
iii) Contraction results in faster conversion of PE to KE by speeding up my adiabatic loop. It speeds up because it doesn’t have to go so high.
iv) The additional KE is attributed incorrectly to the CO2 and is taken to be a net warming effect.
v) But it isn’t because all the extra KE is doing is offsetting the cooling effect of more upward radiation.
vi) Net effect of more CO2 being zero.
Doesn’t it make more sense that way around ?
Max 8:35pm: “I didn’t say you pulled the source from the KT97 paper…”
Max 4:14pm: “…(Trick) digs through the references and plucks a source used by what I think was the KT97 paper to justify his claim.”
Max – The TFK09 global Tg=287K ref. Jones et. al. 1961-1990 is measured 1.25 m off the ground at 12000+ stations by design as stated in the TFK09 source ref.s. What did Max find the global surface skin temperature measured at exactly? 250K? 350K? What? I’m interested to know, really.
Stephen 11:56pm: “vi) Net effect of more CO2 being zero.”
Yes. The global near surface experiences slower cooling and same on up to a certain altitude; above that altitude atm. experiences the exact opposite, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by infrared active gas.
TFK2009 didn’t list it measured, they listed a variety of methods used to get a range of values for the surface skin temperature, and then computed a “black body surface temperature” that gave emissions which worked for their purposes.
The comment btw, was saying that you went through the references listed in the paper and grabbed that one, which being from ’61 to ’90 is probably a reference included because they used it in the KT97 paper.
“vi) Net effect of more CO2 being zero.”
I’ll go for # six. That is what I am finding. But some of your other thoughts could all be true, but they require measurements, for I can think of just as many factors that may say they do not matter of even work in an opposite direction.
Take “iii) Contraction results in faster conversion of PE to KE by speeding up my adiabatic loop. It speeds up because it doesn’t have to go so high.” Could be true but also because it is lower there is less temperature difference and that would mean less speed in your loop. See, I wish you the best in your proposal, but in science you have to have something showing these all are actually occurring and by how much.
“i) CO2 in an atmosphere allows more radiative energy out to space than does a less radiatively active atmosphere.”
I’ve fought with that one myself. Don’t know for sure, but it seems you mixed specific co2 lines with generic radiation lines instead of just saying ‘less co2’. I’ve seen no proof in an atmosphere that just co2, specifically, matters squat. Venus’s outward level after removing albedo seems little difference than Earth’s profile adjusted for the composition. Both shed the amount of energy that goes in at about the 100 to 225 mb level, in fact all planets and moons with thick atmospheres do the same thing according to the charts on that: http://i45.tinypic.com/34i010j.jpg . Jupiter is one of the less-radiative-active atmospheres with He and H2 but yet it sheds what energy that goes at the same pressure and following close the potential temperature curve for that mixture. See why I have trouble placing a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on that? Wish I could concretely prove it either way myself.
“iv) The additional KE is attributed incorrectly to the CO2 and is taken to be a net warming effect.”
What “additional KE”? We are speaking of long periods, right? That is one aspect after all of the words I still don’t know exactly what you mean there.
—
I might not be a good person to place a stamp on your idea. I’ve tried such conjectures, usually long ago, until I found I could always disprove myself or I would have written a paper. None yet. I can’t find one myself to place my own stamp of approval on. See… I’m a great person to tear both yours and mine to pieces cause I’ve done it to myself so very many times for decades !! 🙄
You might need to get better at tearing your own apart. In science if you don’t do it, someone else is bound to call you on it, and usually in a more embarrassing way. Best to do as much of that as you can do yourself first, then write.
But seriously Stephen, I’ll follow your thoughts and ideas, they interest me, I think through each one trying not to pick too much without a queue, and if I come across anything to help, really help, like actual confirming papers or equations I’m more than happy to pass them on.
Trick:
I just located that graph as to where in pressure the tropospheres all end for planets and moons with atmospheres. Still can’t find the paper (or other) from whenc it came.
Mars is already in the stratosphere at the surface, look where it belongs on that plot!
I’m not sure how much I can do regarding empirical results, I was looking at one thing that could show the effect of going from radiation -> vacuum to radiation -> convective atmosphere: tungsten filament incandescents.
They require more power applied to reach the same temperature as a bulb in a vacuum, but have fewer issues with the filament evaporation and longer lifespans at higher temperatures.
Here’s what I put together so far, though I can’t really take credit for it as a contribution of my own, it’s just something that I’ve learned elsewhere which stands out in big bold letters saying “Hey, listen!”… yeah, I get it, hush up http://zeldawiki.org/Navi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I was asked by tallbloke, paraphrased slightly, “396 W/m^2 LW up, 493 W/m^2 SW+LW down, 97 W/m^2 for convection and evaporation, what’s the problem?”
Good question, what is the problem there?
Well, the biggest thing I’d say is that you can’t start with P=εσ(289⁴) up from the surface and then add P=εσ(277⁴) coming down from the atmosphere.
The energy coming back down from the atmosphere originated at the surface, unless the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then the only possible result of this energy returning to the surface would be to reduce emissions into the atmosphere accordingly.
The equation for radiation leaving the surface should actually be P=εσ(289⁴ – 277⁴), which works out to 63 W/m^2, not 396 W/m^2.
I have no clue where the idea that upward and downward components of radiative transfers should be treated independently, but it can mislead one into thinking there is far more energy arriving at the surface than is actually available. Considering that, I’d say it is probably best to use the correct form of the SB equation in the first place, to avoid such issues.
Though if you correct the errors in the Trenberth budgets like this, the surface doesn’t seem to lose enough energy to balance incoming solar though, what a pain.
I suppose you could take the evaporative and convective transfers of 97 W/m^2 and add it to the corrected 63 W/m^2 surface emissions. You get the same value given for solar in at the surface: 160 W/m^2. If you add the direct solar absorbed by the atmosphere you get the net in/out value of 238 W/m^2, so where does all this extra stuff come from in the TFK2009 budget?
…
Perhaps after adding the 333 W/m^2 DWIR to the 160 W/m^2 solar they decided to treat convective and evaporative losses as though they also added to the total 396 W/m^2 UPWIR value so there would be 493 W/m^2 in and out at the surface?
…
May as well pre-empt Trick and pull out a Thermodynamics text from respected authors.
http://books.google.com/books?id=O389yQ0-fecC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The energy transfer is the net radiative exchange and the transfer by free convection. It is equal to the flux q1 that must be added to [the surface] to maintain it at its specified temperature. Since T1 and T2 are given, the hjc must be computed from free-convection correlations and the net energy transfer is, by use of (6-20a),” ~Siegel and Howell
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wayne: I wonder why Venus is not on that plot.
Have no idea. You know, I never even realized it was missing. All my Venus info comes from much higher resolution info and that was just a… look, isn’t that strange, they all are basically at the same pressure and stored it away. Lost that dude for a couple of years but finally found it on an old archive, Trick was curious.
But look at other Venus profiles, the troposphere linear lapse ending right at 62 to 63 km and that would put the pressure in that same range. I have 62 km at 161 mb, 63 km at 134 mb.
Trick said:
“The global near surface experiences slower cooling and same on up to a certain altitude; above that altitude atm. experiences the exact opposite, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by infrared active gas.”
But that requires an expanding (warming) troposphere and a contracting (cooling) stratosphere.
The problem with that is that both result in a higher tropopause and a higher tropopause makes the adiabatic loop higher so the circuit takes longer so that KE is returned to the surface less quickly which offsets the reduction in cooling at the surface. Hence in reality there must be no warming of the troposphere or cooling of the stratosphere from more CO2.
wayne said:
“because it (the adiabatic loop) is lower there is less temperature difference and that would mean less speed in your loop.”
I don’t think so because we are considering a contraction of the entire atmosphere with the same surface temperature and the same temperature of space so the temperature difference is the same but the physical distance smaller so the only way the lapse rate can be maintained at the one set by gravity is for the circuit to run faster so as to equalise at top of atmosphere again.
“iv) The additional KE is attributed incorrectly to the CO2 and is taken to be a net warming effect.”
“What “additional KE”? We are speaking of long periods, right?”
Yes, long periods it is, because there are variations around the mean and the mean is set by incoming energy from the sun.
The faster shallower adiabatic loop must return PE to the surface as KE faster so on the face of it there ‘should’ be more KE swishng about than there othewise would have been but in reality there is not because CO2 is radiating out at exactly the same rate so the temperature doesn’t change.
Perhaps it would help if I give more narrative to that equation:
VT = n Rspecific E (E = PE +KE)
i) The ‘natural’ relationship between V and T is inverse i.e. When volume increases there is decompression and gas cools. When volume decreases there is compression and gas warms.
That is overturned at a surface where new energy is being added under stable pressure. At the surface it looks like a higher temperature causes a higher volume but that is only so if one is adding energy whilst holding pressure stable.
Under an open sky convection then steps in to raise the warmed (less dense and thus lighter) expanded air to a greater height and lower presuure whereupon the distortion caused by proximity to the heated surface is negated.
So if V increases then P falls and reduces T so that the product of VT remains stable unless new energy is added so as to raise both. We end up with the same VT as before the surface heating but a lower P at a higher level.
But you cannot alter P for an atmosphere as a whole hence the inadequacy of the Ideal Gas Law in that situation.
ii) On the other side of the equation one has to realise that the height of the atmosphere is a result of TOTAL energy E and not just KE.
That is because the pressure gradient distributes all the available energy equally between PE and KE at equilibrium.
So one can expand V by increasing PE OR KE and when V increases T drops for a cooling effect UNLESS the proportions of PE and KE change to correct T and I think that is what happens via an adjustment within the adiabatic loop.
The speed of the adiabatic loop adjusts to the change in atmospheric height so as to remove any imbalance between KE and PE that might be caused by any forcing elements other than more mass, more gravity or more insolation.
iii) For the atmosphere as a whole no energy is being added when one increases net radiative capability and P remains the same as does n and R. The only possible variables if P is kept steady are T and V.
So when radiative capability changes there is an apparent potential to change T but if one simply changes T whilst leaving all the other terms the same there will be more KE in the atmosphere than is required to make energy in equal energy out at top of atmosphere.
The total E will still be the same because no more energy is being supplied from outside but the radiative change would have upset the natural 50/50 balance between KE and PE.
If Pressure is held steady there cannot be an adjustment from a pressure change so inevitably V has to change instead which cancels any rise in T because of the inverse relationship.
Summary:
One cannot use variations in P to help retain thermal equilibrium for an atmosphere as a whole, only for discrete parcels of air within an atmosphere
The height of the atmosphere is determined by KE +PE and not KE alone.
If all of the terms E, n, Rspecific and P are fixed as they are when no extra energy is being supplied to the system then the only variables left are V and T which are inversely proportional to each other so any change in either must instantly cancel out any change in the other.
I think my equation works.
Hi Stephen, good to see you’ve been thinking this through further. I think your hypothesis is developing nicely. However, there is still the question of latent heat outstanding, although it is probably reasonable to leave it out of the equation for now. If T is some kind of expression of energy, then the left side of the equation is Energy times volume. This seems reasonable too. We get other such quantities in classical mechanics, such as Newton-metres. Nm=J. How might we turn VT into Joules I wonder.
Thanks tallbloke.
No need to include latent heat because the removal of KE to latent when evaporation occurs unbalances the KE/PE relationship at the surface set by the pressure gradient but uplift then occurs until the latent comes back to KE again from condensation higher up which rebalances the KE/PE relationship so the net effect in the water cycle is zero and has no net effect on the entire surface to space vertical column.
Note that water vapour being lighter than air the creation of latent heat is the same as an injection of PE in place of KE so given the pressure gradient the air is then in the wrong position relative to the gravitational field. Convective uplift corrects for that.
Latent heat is just PE at the wrong height !!!
Joules come in within the term R which is work done per mole per degree as we saw previously.
Basically if anything tries to upset the KE/PE energy balance away from the 50/50 ratio imposed by the pressure gradient it goes straight to a change in V which prevents a change in T.
It works like that because for an entire atmosphere one can no longer adjust P. Only T and V are then variables and inversely at that.
Meanwhile as long as the sun gets no hotter then E stays the same.
As long as the atmosphere contains no more mass then n stays the same.
As long as the gravitational field is stable Rspecific stays the same.
The inverse relationship between V and T then does the rest to ensure stability.
Max 3:51am – Yeah, a range of method’s to calculate skin temp. s from the 1.25 m up air temperatures. That is consistent with my browsing the link you posted ECMWF site. They showed an eqn. deriving skin temp. and noted it has no heat capacity which I didn’t dig into. I couldn’t find any results just the math. Skin temp. remains for me to be the calculated T of the dirt needed for the 1.25 m up air temp.
******
wayne 4:22am– Yeah, problem is Mars surface must just be too high for its atm., LOL. In the stratosphere is a funny way to say it. Note the dotted lines showing an unknown surface temperature if there even is a surface. Interesting showing Titan being so much “warmer” than Uranus and Neptune.
******
tallbloke 6:26am: Venus would be off my monitor to the right somewhere.
11:41 am: “How might we turn VT into Joules I wonder.”
Bring the R over to the left side w/VT. Still won’t solve the oranges and apples units issue though.
tallbloke asked:
“How might we turn VT into Joules I wonder.”
The value of Rspecific on the right is work done per mole per degree which converts Joules to E (KE+PE) but by virtue of the pressure gradient only half of E can be KE which then gives us T on the left.
Trick, the 30ft tide on Titan generates heat. Given how cold it is out there, a little bit of extra energy makes quite a big difference in Kelvin terms.
Stephen 9:56am: “The problem with that is that both result in a higher tropopause and a higher tropopause makes the adiabatic loop higher so the circuit takes longer so that KE is returned to the surface less quickly which offsets the reduction in cooling at the surface. Hence in reality there must be no warming of the troposphere or cooling of the stratosphere from more CO2.”
The exact math shows the tropopause remains at exact same height in the limit to conserve energy.
“But that requires an expanding (warming) troposphere and a contracting (cooling) stratosphere.”
Atm. in total doesn’t warm or cool net. Stephen’s concept doesn’t conserve energy appropriately.
There is no energy problem when worked according to nature’s laws as I’ve explained in the past, just that it is so technical it is hard to get across and make it stick. In reality the physics shows when the start of the lapse curve at ~1000mb is necessarily slightly higher T causes the end of lapse curve to be at slightly lower T at same exact tropopause height compensating total energy.
Stephen’s adiabatic processes run slightly faster near the surface (based on V most probable for N2 slightly higher) and Stephen’s adiabatic processes run same amount slightly slower near the same exact height for tropopause (V most probable for N2 slightly lower) in the limit.
This is not intuitive; it comes about because the gas enthalpy must be held the same as the standard atm. gas enthalpy up to tropopause so total energy is neither created nor destroyed. Mathematically this is hard to do but has been done for at least 15 years now or more – the science has been worked out convincingly. Need the appropriate higher level training to learn how it all successfully works.
The physics also show this process is self limiting, diminishing in effect as infrared active gas ppm increases and vice versa. The science debate should be over the size of effect on global near surface Tavg. not that there is an effect – which is so small both in physics and hard to measure in practice it is currently impossible to pick the fly droppings from the pepper. Don’t use pepper if want to be safe until the instruments are precise enough for pepper purification.
Trick said:
“The exact math shows the tropopause remains at exact same height in the limit to conserve energy.”
Trick’s story was that tropopause warms whilst stratosphere cools and both those processes would result in a higher tropopause but Trick admits that it doesn’t happen.
More energy in the troposphere pushes the tropopause up and less energy in the stratosphere pulls the tropopause up.
I agree, it doesn’t happen and Trick’s scenario fails.
Stephen 2:37pm: “More energy in the troposphere pushes the tropopause up…”
Yes more energy is what it would take to push up tropopause as well as pushing up TOA.
The more energy would have to and does come from the sun not offset w/changes in albedo since the needed internal energy pushing up tropopause can’t result net from internal infrared active gas (atm. emissivity changes) resulting from internal processes which neither create nor destroy energy in the earth/atm. system control volume.
The internal process stuff (Stephen’s adiabatic) adds and subtracts energy in equal amounts in total atm. and below tropopause – as Stephen writes easy to see PE+KE = constant (along with other not so easy terms). That must be so & the mathematicians force it to happen along with controlling for entropy. Cite 1st law. And 2nd. And IGL PV=nRT.
This scenario has worked undefeated and built on w/better and better science for at least 15 or more years. It is truly not my scenario. My preferred scenario is a beach bar. Not checking for typo.s.
Trick:
You said CO2 warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere to achieve a zero net effect.
That would be bound to raise the tropopause.
Not possible, doesn’t happen, as you pointed out.
CO2 not guilty.
Stephen 6:15pm: “Trick: You said CO2 warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere to achieve a zero net effect.”
Thanks for the calm discussion Stephen. Here’s my clip you used, no mention of stratosphere, but I can see your issue.
“The global near surface experiences slower cooling and same on up to a certain altitude; above that altitude atm. experiences the exact opposite, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by infrared active gas.”
Around here, that “certain altitude” causes as tallbloke mentions on emissivity thread “emotional, probably” responses.
The ”certain altitude” crossover I mean is well w/in the troposphere – little less than 600mb pressure altitude in standard atm. still on smooth lapse curve. Would of course vary spatial and temporal sampled.
Above that “certain altitude” ~600mb get the local T compensates down for the upward T near surface to conserve energy in the mathematical workouts and make sure entropy considerations consistent with 2nd law and PV=nRT, tropopause and TOA heights held constant.
“In the stratosphere is a funny way to say it.”
It was a joke Trick! 😉
Well, sortof, I read in some agency article that said the stratosphere on Earth sometimes extends all of the way to surface in the Arctic winter and that funny viewpoint just stuck. Knew I could use it somewhere!
A fine joke too wayne 8:02pm! I laughed. Not all serious around here, no fun that way.
Looks like I did misread Trick’s words because the general AGW theory is as I worded it, namely a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere.
Trick says:
January 22, 2013 at 1:13 am
“Yes. The global near surface experiences slower cooling and same on up to a certain altitude; above that altitude atm. experiences the exact opposite, since energy is neither created nor destroyed by infrared active gas.”
——————————————————————————-
And increasing the buoyancy of gas close to the surface and decreasing the buoyancy of gas in the mid to upper troposphere leads to what? Faster convective circulation!
For a brief moment I thought Trick had got it, but then…
Konrad 10:15pm – Not on avg. faster – global avg. temporal and spatial sampled, some slower, some faster, takes more energy from outside to avg. faster, or lose energy to outside to avg. slower. Yes, it is windy inside the earth/atm. control volume.
Trick, does radiation have entropy?
I would say radiation has entropy as long as the total energy of the radiation can do something “useful”. I think I am about to be taken to school anyway, so Max 10:36pm can now proceed.
Trick says:
January 22, 2013 at 10:26 pm
“Not on avg. faster..”
———————————————————-
I take that to be bafflegab which should have been written “the average speed of convective circulation will not be faster in the troposphere due to the addition of radiative gases.”
This would of course be incorrect. Convective circulation depends on radiative gases in the troposphere. Without radiative gases releasing energy to space at altitude, convective circulation would not occur below the tropopause. Without radiative gases the average speed of convective circulation in the troposphere would be zero. Adding radiative gases will not slow convection in the atmosphere or leave it unchanged. Adding radiative gases speeds up convection in the atmosphere.
For an atmosphere such as ours that has maintained a very stable temperature for thousands of years and is exhibiting continued convective circulation there is only one possible answer. Energy is exiting the atmosphere at a higher altitude than it is entering the atmosphere. There is only one way our atmosphere loses energy at altitude, that is through IR radiation to space.
For an atmosphere with a vertical pressure gradient, heated near the surface, radiative gases act as coolants at all concentrations above 0ppm.
Stephen, you should abandon that funny equation and take a new tangent.
I think I see what you are trying to say, I think, that the energy that pours into the surface and atmosphere does cause an increase in temperature and that increase in temperature causes by the IGL an increase in volume raising the column but every night that increase in height (PE) and increased volume is converted back to KE keeping the temperature higher that it would have been without that storage of PE (potential energy) during the daytime expansion. This storage of energy is not being accounted for anywhere best I can tell.
Isn’t that your very, very base point you are trying to address?
So look at energy and not the IGL specific. It takes a given amount of energy to even raise the temperature. How much energy? That is governed by ‘cp’, about 29.07 J/kg/K. At night, that increased volume comes back down to the same value each mean day so it is as if you should have used ‘cv’ instead of ’cp’ and it is cv=cp-R or about 20.76 J/kg/K.
It’s harder, 29 J instead of 21 J, to raise the temperature of air during the day for the atmosphere has no lid, just a frictionless “gravitational cap” on top of each column. The extra ‘R’ (8.3144 J) goes into the lifting of the column.
The 29 J goes in during the day with a constant pressure but ends up by the end of nighttime being 21 J that was all the energy to raise the temperature at a constant volume.
Take the ratio 29.07/20.76 (γ=1.4) and multiply it by N-K’s mean temperature with surface thermal inertia taken into account, not the 154 K of and inertia-less surface, I remember it is right above 200K, I think it was about 206 K. Well, 29.07/20.76 * 206 K is the 288 to 289 K we find that is the mean Earth temperature at the surface.
Isn’t that close to what you are trying to prove without re-creating a new Ideal Gas Law + gravity and creating a new set of new gas constants to boot?
Could that be where the AGW conjecture goes so very wrong not taking into account energy storage during the daytime that can, and does, convert at nigh by PE > KE back to KE of temperature?
Seems looking into ‘cp’ and ‘cv’ might be the better tack you should be on (just a tip from an old sailor).
You could then bring in other factors like composition changes. In water vapor’s state change case but you might find you really don’t even need to address that specifically.
TYPO — I mixed terms. Either should have used Cp and Cv or should have used 1003 and 716.4 for the values of cp and cv but the ratio I was speaking of stays the same either way. Shouldn’t really change the essense of everything I wrote.
See, I always tend to forget the importance in the damn caps! (or not, either way it hurts)
Ever seen something un-emit a photon?
Can you put radiation back into a source, or do you have to reflect/emit a new photon back into it?
Can you collect all of the radiation from a source and put it back “inside”?
wayne.
Thanks for that. I think you are right that the diurnal variation is similar in principle because it shows the storage process and the daily changes in the amount of energy stored as PE on one half of the globe but that example involves a change in input from the sun which affects both V and T together because the total of PE and KE is being increased and decreased on the irradiated side and so that example though a helpful illustration is not applicable to the entire atmosphere.
The matter of radiative effects within the atmosphere involves only V and the relative proportions of KE/PE because the total of PE+KE gets no larger if one is looking at the entire atmosphere on both day and night side.
I think my equation is the best stab at that so far.
I’m not creating a new Ideal Gas Law plus gravity because both the IGL and my equation incorporate gravity in the term Rspecific already.
Nor is there a new set of gas constants. Just the same old Rspecific.
What my equation does is recognise that V and T are inversely proportional and that V is dependent on PE + KE and not just by KE because of the gravity induced pressure gradient.
I still think that it covers the situation.
I agree that the movement of energy in and out of storage (PE) in order to retain equilibrium when V changes is not addressed anywhere else as far as I can see.
One needs to introduce the variable height or speed of the adiabatic loop in order to address that.
Konrad 10:59pm: Your strawman; well stabbed only if you can ‘splain the source of the created energy within the control volume of earth/atm. causing net speed up (more f*d ) diffusion and advection because as you write only constant radiative energy flux gets in/out to deep space (at LTE I might add).
Yes, it is windy near earth surface.
******
Max 11:48pm: All the natural processes I’ve ever seen follow: T*dS greater than delta Q. Bar none.
I’ve learned about these natural processes from natural thought experiments w/pictures of processes following: T*dS equal delta Q but none of these exist in the wild. If they did, my furnace wouldn’t run as much, if at all when 255K outside.
Humorous mood – Philo. Questions to wrestle with:
1) Would un-emit mean absorb?
2) Would objects emitted from an Emitter that come within range of the Unemitter instantly disappear?
3) If we un-emitted attention, what would happen to a blog? To Politicians?
4) Can you stimulate when things un-emit like the opposite of a LASER? A LASUER pointer that takes a dark round spot of light OFF the presentation? Or is un-emitting only ever spontaneous?
Thought that word was humorous, please disregard 2-4. Been a long, cold Jan., shows the lack of GW in the face of increased atm. emissivity around here, my liquor cabinet has been raided, emitting a tumbler or two I am un-emitting, until later emitting.
As regards Trick’s earlier comments about the troposphere I think he is describing the effect of water vapour and its phase changes.
In fact the issue is the effect of the radiative characteristics of CO2 and the theory in relation to that is the warming of the troposphere and simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere but that cannot be right because if it were right the tropopause height would have changed but as Trick says it appears not to have done so.
The likely reason is that the net effect of CO2 is zero for the reason I set out in the Emissions thread and that the changes observed are due to other natural causes such as solar and oceanic variability.
“but that example involves a change in input from the sun ”
No, not at all. From the sun’s viewpoint, the Earth is ALWAYS identically irradiated. There is always, every second, one exact hemisphere illuminated. (assuming the sun’s output does not change itself)