E.O. Hulburt: The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth 1931

Posted: August 14, 2013 by tallbloke in atmosphere, general circulation

H/T to @DocRichard for flagging up this important step along the road to the misunderstanding of the causes of Earth’s balmy surface temperature. If anyone can find the full paper let me know.

E. O. Hulburt
Naval Research Laboratory

Received 9 October 1931; published in the issue dated November 1931

From the known amounts of the various gases of the atmosphere from sea level to about 20 km, from the observed light absorption coefficients of the gases and from the albedo of the earth’s surface the temperature of the atmosphere in radiative equilibrium is calculated on the assumption that the sunlight is the only source of energy. The calculation is perhaps more rigorous than has hitherto been attempted, although it contains a number of approximations. The sea level temperature comes out to be about 19° above the observed world-wide average value 287°K, and the temperature above about 3 km falls many degrees below the observed temperatures. The temperature gradient in levels from 3 to 6 km is greater than that of convective equilibrium and hence the atmosphere would not be dynamically stable if radiation equilibrium prevailed. Therefore air currents take place to bring about convective equilibrium. Continuing the calculation it is found that only when the convective region extends to about 12 km (as is observed), with radiative equilibrium above 12 km (as is observed), does the atmosphere satisfy the conditions of dynamic stability and thermal equilibrium with the received solar energy. For this case the calculated sea level temperature is 290°K in good agreement with the observed value 287°K. Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere increases the average sea level temperature by about 4° and 7°K, respectively; halving or reducing to zero the carbon dioxide decreases the temperature by similar amounts. Such changes in temperature are about the same as those which occur when the earth passes from an ice age to a warm age, or vice versa. Thus the calculation indicates that the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages, originally proposed by Tyndall, is a possible theory.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere increases the average sea level temperature by about 4° and 7°K, respectively; halving or reducing to zero the carbon dioxide decreases the temperature by similar amounts.’

    Doesn’t the standard atmosphere determine that average temperature at any given height is tied to air pressure?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere

  2. ren says:

    The source of energy, especially in the stratosphere, it can also be galactic radiation with high energy, the intensity of which is increased during low solar activity. Secondary radiation reaching the Earth’s surface even. Up to now, been considered short periods of growth of this radiation during solar minima. It may be different when the period will be extended for several years. In the current cycle still remains fairly high level of radiation. If the magnetic activity of the Sun shall be as provided Vukcevic probably need to change the point of view of the scale of the impact of this radiation.
    Please make a chart of cosmic rays at the station in Oulu since 1964, to understand what I mean.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

  3. Stephen Wilde says:

    Doesn’t seem to consider lateral changes in circulation, only convection in the vertical plane.

    Nor the slope of convective heights between equator and poles.

    I think he would have found that those additional parameters change as necessary to keep thermal stability despite any effect from changes in the radiative characteristics of constituent gases.

  4. Roger Andrews says:

    I can’t find a free copy of this paper, but for the princely sum of $25 you can buy one.

    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v38/i10/p1876_1

  5. The Standard Atmosphere indeed rules as the precisely(!) true, stable equilibrium state of Earth’s troposphere. See The True Situation In Climate Science.

    And it seems utterly clear to me that neither radiation nor convection rule the vertical temperature distribution in the troposphere–climate scientists don’t even know how to measure radiation transfer of heat within the atmosphere (they measure the temperature, basically, and call it radiation intensity), and convection is a blunt instrument riding the winds that only pierce the various temperature levels, without changing them, certainly not globally or long-term. That leaves conduction as the fundamental physical process of creating and maintaining the vertical temperature lapse rate structure.

  6. ren says:

    The most important for climate change are phenomena in the stratosphere. Here is an example:
    AAO index reached an absolute record. Winter in the South will be long.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

  7. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    Ot – What happened to the Nikolov & Zeller gas law / gravity ideas about the atmosphere?

  8. tallbloke says:

    They’re still working on it in spare time. Ned says good science is like fine wine. Not to be hurried.

  9. ren says:

    Do you record negative AAO winter conditions, will record growth of ice around Antarctica?
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  10. tjfolkerts says:

    @ harry.

    I hate to have to tell you, but you have things almost completely wrong.

    1) The standard atmosphere is an idealization with a DEFINED sea level pressure and temperature, along with a DEFINED lapse rate. This moderately close to the real atmosphere, but is in no way fundamental. It would be like saying this guy http://www.geekosystem.com/most-typical-human/ is the Standard Human.

    2) Radiation intensity, temperature and radiation transfer all three different things. There is no particular difficulty measuring radiation. Sure it is an indirect measurement, but then any measurement of temperature or pressure or force using a transducer is an indirect measurement.

    3) Conduction does NOT determine the temperature profile of the atmosphere. Conductive energy flow is on the order of mW/m^2. For conduction to rule, the temperature gradient would have to be ~ 1000x as great. Conduction and/or radiation would lead to much larger temperature gradients than we observe. Convection is the “governor” that prevents the lapse rate from getting above 10 K/km.

  11. tjfolkerts says:

    It’s not a question of “taking their time”, but a question of improved data and speed of calculation. It is the nature of science to revisit old problems when new data or techniques are available. Given the relatively sparse climate data and the absence of computers for number-crunching, i am impressed with how well E.O. Hulburt did with an admittedly very crude model.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Welcome back Tim

  13. Q. Daniels says:

    At the very most basic level of thermodynamics is the assertion that the correlation between velocities does not matter. That is to say, it is assumed in a system around maximum entropy, the velocity of one particle is completely independent of those in its vicinity.

    I find this to be a curious assertion.

    Does it matter?

    It changes how the entropy is distributed within the gas. Instead of being entirely within the particles, some very small portion is associated with parcels of air. In solid-state, it would be called phonons.

    I’ll have more later, but I wanted to get this out there in case someone else wanted to run with it.

  14. Stephen Wilde says:

    tjfolkerts said:

    “Convection is the “governor” that prevents the lapse rate from getting above 10 K/km.”

    Then why is it so hard for Tim to acknowledge that the governor prevents a temperature rise when compositional changes occur?

    Convection changes are always accompanied by general circulation changes and general circulation changes alter the rate at which energy flows through the system.

    Thus if CO2 slows the energy flow through the system then convection increases so as to speed it up again.

    That is what a ‘governor’ does.

    After that, all that remains is to establish the scale of any effect from human emissions as against sun and ocean induced variations.

    From what we saw from MWP to LIA to date we could never measure our miniscule contribution.

  15. ren says:

    The stratosphere in the polar vortex and ocean strongly interact to regulate the temperature.

  16. tjfolkerts says:

    Stephen, I would claim that I am going one step beyond the analysis you presented. The composition will have no impact (well, very minimal impact) on the temperature *gradient* because convection will continue to govern the lapse rate.

    But doubling the CO2 will raise the “top of atmosphere” for radiation. The cool radiation will be coming from even higher than before, where it is even cooler, so it will emit even less IR to space from the atmosphere. This creates an overall energy imbalance. As energy builds up, the whole atmosphere will warm.

    The TOA might move up 1 km and the TOA temperature might decrease by 8.5 K. The base might warm by 2 K. This maintains a 6.5 K lapse rate and maintains the over all energy balance (well, I made up the numbers, but something *like* that should work).

    So I keep the governor set at 6.5 K/km from convection, but raise the temperature throughout the atmosphere in such a way that the energy balance is re-established.

    [And yes, there are all sort of other factors that I have assumed are constant in this example. Some of these — cloud cover for example — could also change, which wold complicate the simple ‘back-of-the-envelope” scenario I described above.]

  17. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: “So I keep the governor set at 6.5 K/km from convection, but raise the temperature throughout the atmosphere”

    If you raise the temperature throughout the atmosphere then the ‘TOA’ will warm as well n’est pas? So the radiation from TOA won’t be at such a low temperature as a lapse rate calc on the initial conditions might indicate, despite being higher. Plus a warmer atmosphere will expand, adding to the effect.

  18. Trick says:

    tjf 5:44pm: “doubling the CO2…the whole atmosphere will warm.”

    I can see the burning of fossil fuels uses up energy in a natural resource to create useful & wasted temperature increases dumped into the atm. thermo mix. From studies in the literature I’ve seen, these useful and waste energy temperature differences are immaterial to the increase in either planetary global mean 1) near surface atm. or 2) whole atm. temperature in steady state.

    If so, then when “doubling CO2” occurs which other resource energy is being used up to materially increase the mean “whole atm.” temperature? My view would be no energy is used up from “doubling CO2” well mixed in the atm. thus the warming of the near surface atm. by added infrared active gas physics must be offset by their cooling of the atm. at great height in steady state.

    Can Tim F. et. al. offer a citation, text ref. or physical reason based on 1st principles to improve on my view?

  19. tallbloke says:

    As a matter of fact, “cooling of the atm. at great height” has already occurred:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/ken-gregory-water-vapor-decline-cools-the-earth-nasa-satellite-data/
    Which neatly confirms Clive Best’s theory

    Click to access Negative_Water_Feedback.pdf

  20. Trick says:

    tallbloke 6:58pm: Thanks for those links. I do recall reading that post and about that time frame googling for stratosphere global mean temperature papers. The result IIRC was that there was not yet enough stratosphere measured temperature data to make a decent statistical call on its mean temp. Nobody lives there, no proxies, we haven’t thermometers floating around like near the surface.

    Note the 1st link last line, I read all the way there absorbing humidity but not temperature discussion:

    “CO2 does not cause significant global warming.”

    This I take to mean global total atm. mean temperature not the near surface global mean temperature, consistent with the view I’ve formed.

    The second link again seems to deal with what we know about upper level water vapor content and not “cooling of the atm. at great height”. I recall I simply googled for “stratosphere” “temperature” and that was the extent of my research having found a recent (lo-o-o-ng) paper concluding therein not enough measured temp. data yet exists to make a decent call but the dataset is growing (radiosonde coverage, satellite) to eventually get enough to lower the stratosphere mean temp. CIs to within reason over time.

  21. Trick says:

    Thanks again tb. Here is the paper in full, along the lines I recall, don’t think I have seen this one but ref. 1 (2001) is some 51 pages long, that might be the one I found earlier.

    Click to access ThompsonEtal.Nature2012.pdf

    “Unfortunately, observations of stratospheric temperatures are limited….the stratospheric temperature record spans only a few decades and is derived from a handful of data sources3,4…..Uncertainties in middle and upper stratospheric temperatures…are much larger.”

    Generated chuckles out of this honesty:

    – The observations may be in error.

    – the methodology used to generate the original Met Office (stratospheric sounding unit) data remains undocumented.

    – data should be processed by at least one additional independent research group. Similar controversies regarding surface and tropospheric temperature changes over the past few decades have motivated tests of the reproducibility of trend estimates.

    – to avoid a continuation of the current perplexing and frustrating situation…effort is essential for assessing future stratospheric climate change without the ambiguities we currently face.

  22. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The cool radiation will be coming from even higher than before, where it is even cooler, so it will emit even less IR to space from the atmosphere. ”

    TB has answered that point.

    The higher level will be warmer than before due to overall expansion of the atmosphere and so will release energy to space faster not slower.

    I have raised that point with alarmists many times and never had a sensible response.

  23. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “My view would be no energy is used up from “doubling CO2” well mixed in the atm. thus the warming of the near surface atm. by added infrared active gas physics must be offset by their cooling of the atm. at great height in steady state.”

    If there is an offsetting cooler atmosphere at higher levels then the increased lapse rate gives faster and higher convection leading to an increase in the rate of energy throughput.

    That increase offsets any decrease in throughput caused by the CO2 for a zero net effect on temperatures.

  24. Trick says:

    Stephen 11:17pm – “…faster and higher convection…”

    If so, then earth system is enabled to get its air conditioning for free w/o the customary local utility charge. I can’t buy your story unless you can find authority for the source of the used up energy.

  25. Roger Andrews says:

    Another paper on CO2 impacts written at about the same time that’s worth a read is Callender, 1938, full paper available here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/abstract

    Callendar’s estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 was about 1.8C (Figure 2). It’s beginning to look as if he might not have been too far off.

  26. Trick says:

    Roger A. – Yes, a neat story, plus I wish someone would find (I couldn’t) the top post paper which preceded Callendar’s. Would be an interesting story to compare.

    I traced down the NRL Library and online it goes back to 1931 but doesn’t have that title. However, the very last bulletin in Nov./Dec. 1931 was very interesting read for other physics of the time – they WERE a bit wordy (Lt.s paid by word?). There were e-mail contacts for NRL library that I may follow up in time if no one finds it any easier.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Callendar’s estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 was about 1.8C (Figure 2). It’s beginning to look as if he might not have been too far off.

    Heh. I doubt it. 🙂

    By the way, have you seen Dave Coe’s responses via me on his Co2 thread?

  28. Fanakapan says:

    Should we remember that it was in 1931 that Picard achieved a height of 51,000 or so feet ? The point being that whilst there may have been conjecture about what was happening above that level, it was just that, conjecture.

    I’m sure that in the context of the War that is ongoing between Warming Scooterists and the Sceptical, the Doomsayers may well be quick to point such things out ?

  29. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    In Table VI Callendar predicts only 0.21C of surface warming in the 21st century. That may not be too far off either. 😉

    I’ve seen David Coe’s responses and have some comments. I thought I would wait until he got back from China before posting them but I can do it now if you like.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Not for me, I’m off to kip. Hold off until Dave returns in a day or so.

  31. tchannon says:

    Sounding balloons had revealed plenty by then, note dates on the images. Data tended to be recorded on photographic film which was returned to earth. One trick was twin rubber balloons. One burst, package descended safely using the other.

    At some point I expect I will show some plots. I was surprised at what they achieved.


  32. ren says:

    There are a lot of questions. For example, if the temperature changes in winter at the poles of earth are associated with jumps of cosmic rays in the solar cycle?

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/real_time_index_nrm.shtml
    Only satellite indicators can not be wrong. I advise you to watch up to date stratosphere.

  33. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “If so, then earth system is enabled to get its air conditioning for free w/o the customary local utility charge”

    The local utility charge is the totality of all the energy (KE plus PE) held by all atmospheric gases whether radiative or non radiative.

    The conditioning unit is the variable volume of the atmosphere so that more PE rather than more KE means that a higher surface temperature is not required when volume increases.

    The Ideal Gas Laws are the necessary authority.

  34. Trick says:

    Stephen 11:33am – You haven’t ever explained which energy resource is used up to air condition the near surface atm. after CO2 (or other infrared active gas) replaces O2 for “…when volume increases.”

    The total planet system is in steady state, no extra energy is available. Energy in – energy out ~ 0. Your claim to push up the atm. in a gravity field, to expand its volume, takes energy – what resource is used up for the process that does so, what pays the energy bill? Energy isn’t free. Fusion uses up CO2 mass? Fission? CO2 burning? What? Until you can find an answer to these questions based on science principles your claim is unsupported.

    The local utility has cut off your A/C for non-payment of the energy bill.

  35. ren says:

    Range of the jet stream in the northern hemisphere today corresponds exactly to the border -50 degrees C in the lower stratosphere.

  36. Stephen Wilde says:

    “You haven’t ever explained which energy resource is used up to air condition the near surface atm.

    Incoming solar energy is retained in the system for a period of time proportionate to the amount of mass and the strength of the gravity field.

    That retained energy supports the height of the atmosphere.

    If compositional changes try to have an effect then the volume and / or circulation changes instead of the temperature rising.

    No more and no less energy is required as a result of compositional changes. No bill to pay. Conservation of energy at all times.

    Slower or faster passage of energy through the system as a result of any composition change is offset by faster or slower passage of energy through the system from the circulation change.

    If the circulation change is sufficient on its own then maybe no volume change either. Just a redistribution of the air masses.

  37. ren says:

    In the south of the jet stream runs along the border between -65 degrees C in the lower stratosphere.

    And the jet stream affects the temperature in southern and eastern Australia.
    http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Australia?symbols=none&type=lapse

  38. Trick says:

    Stephen – “If compositional changes try to have an effect then the volume and / or circulation changes instead of the temperature rising.”

    As I wrote & Stephen again misses here, it takes energy to increase the volume of the atm. Since no composition change is used up to create this energy, there can be no volume increase due to CO2 ppm replacing O2. So the near surface global mean temperature is enabled to rise by the well established gas physics, same as the upper atm. is cooled.

    Circulation changes don’t affect total atm. steady state energy in any way since no resource in them is used up to do so.

    “No more and no less energy is required as a result of compositional changes. No bill to pay. Conservation of energy at all times.”

    Correct. No bill means can’t turn on Stephen’s A/C to reduce earth’s global mean near surface atm. temperature nor raise temp. of the atm. at great height to counter the effects of added infrared active gas. So the near surface global mean temperature rises as a result of added CO2 ppm, we just don’t know how much and/or for how long but so far Callendar’s simple prediction is doing pretty well. Stephen should be sure to read and understand his 1938 paper mentioned above. Then dig into a modern text book on the same subjects.

  39. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick misses that the circulation or volume change caused by our emissions requires no more energy entering the system from ToA but it does involve a rise (infinitesimal) in the length of time that incoming energy stays in the system.

    Thus the total energy in the system does rise but the change in volume / circulation ensures that the ‘extra’ energy is in the form of PE (in the atmosphere above the surface) rather than KE (at the surface) because all of it goes to working against the gravitational field rather than raising the temperature (which is set by mass and not composition).

    The strength of the gravitational field puts a limit on the surface temperature (KE) that can be attained by a given amount of mass at a given level of insolation.

    Note that changes in the proportion of ToA insolation reaching the surface can change surface KE and therefore surface temperature which is where cloudiness and global albedo changes come in but that is a separate phenomenon to that involving radiative gases.

    Once the change in volume / circulation has occurred the rate of energy flow through the system returns to matching the rate of energy incoming at ToA.

    Therefore the air conditioning analogy does not hold. There is no change in temperature that needs to be countered, Instead, there is merely a change in volume / circulation.

    Convection constantly changes so as to ensure that any ‘excess’ KE goes to PE (volume or circulation) and not a rise in temperature (KE).

    A change in circulation always involves a change in both volume and the rate of energy flow through the system so any net effect on that flow from compositional characteristics of individual molecules is negated

    Every gas molecule that is capable of absorbing and re emitting radiatively simply rises or falls depending on the net effect of the radiative exchange and in so far as it conducts energy between itself and surrounding non radiative molecules they simply rise or fall too.

    It is not necessary to change surface temperature to cause such rising or falling. Only a change in the energy content of the individual molecules is required.

    The gravitational field always ensures that the molecules are sorted out by convection so that their energy content determines their height but the higher the energy content the higher they rise so that their temperature does not rise. The temperature of every molecule will always come to match the temperature set by the gravitationally determined lapse rate at the height at which it settles.

    There are regions and heights where the relationship does not hold such as where the phase changes of water destabilise the lapse rate in the troposphere or where solar energy has thermal effects on ozone in the stratosphere but convection sorts that out too. In the troposphere we see the water cycle and in the stratosphere the Brewer-Dobson circulation.

    Between surface and space the net global effect of convection is always to ensure that the gravitationally set lapse rate is on average maintained overall with the ToA energy exchange in long term balance despite short term imbalances.

    Meanwhile, surface temperature stays the same provided global cloudiness or albedo stay the same but the volume and /or circulation of the atmosphere changes.

  40. Trick says:

    Checking back here, I find no EOH 1931 paper posted yet but I do find: instead of reading and learning from the 1938 Callendar paper (or a modern text) Stephen 7:54am wasted that time to write: “…volume change caused by our emissions requires no more energy entering the system from ToA but it does involve a rise (infinitesimal) in the length of time that incoming energy stays in the system.”

    Stephen – I shouldn’t have to write this: the energy you need for this comes from somewhere. Your assertion doesn’t tell where so is unsupported.

    Incoming energy staying in the earth total system for a rise in length of time for higher mean temperature in the total atm. which indeed could push the atm. up, temporarily expand its volume means somewhere in the universe there is equal & opposite less energy for the same time, a resource somewhere else was used up to provide the dollop incoming energy staying time.

    Where from Stephen? What resource was used up to provide that energy for an imbalance for that length of time? What resource is used up to cool the surface when system returns to steady state forcing surface temperature “stays the same”? Again, your assertion is not supported.

    Far as I can tell, Stephen can’t find a source for that incoming energy rise time, he just makes energy up (as usual) and as a result gets free A/C at the surface, pays no energy bill cooling (refrigerating) the surface air back down in the face of added emissions of infrared active gas (as detailed by Callendar et.al.). Stephen still provides unsupported energy physics for his hypothesis surface temperature “stays the same” in face of our emissions.

    Callendar provides all the physics support needed for his hypothesis and geez, subsequent events some 75 years later were reasonably predicted in 1938 (near home plate not just in the ballpark) based on Callendar’s use of general first principle science.

    Callendar wins the game by throwing strikes vs. Stephen’s wild pitches.

  41. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well, Trick, I think you just blew your credibility.

    A system that holds on to energy flowing through it for longer will contain more energy but it doesn’t need to be in the form of KE which does affect temperature.

    In the presence of mass held within a gravitational field and irradiated from outside the additional energy all goes to PE which does not register as temperature.

    AGW theory proposes that GHGs hold on to energy a little longer and thereby warm the lower levels but cool the upper levels in order to maintain ToA balance.

    I say that the energy retained by GHGs alters global air circulation and / or volume in order to convert the excess energy to PE rather than KE so that there need be no lower level warming nor upper level cooling.

    There are several lines of evidence supporting my view:

    i) The stratosphere has stopped cooling and the troposphere has stopped warming despite increasing CO2 emissions.

    ii) The Ideal Gas Laws describe the process in terms of basic physical principles.

    iii) No upper troposphere hot spot has been found.

    It is of course true that if the atmosphere holds on to energy for a little longer then less of the incoming solar energy will be released back to space during that increase in delay time but the universe as a whole isn’t going to notice its absence.

    Note that maintaining a particular atmospheric height at a constant level requires a continuing flow of energy through the system.

    Raising the height requires more energy held within the system but not more energy flowing through the system.

    Additional height from composition changes means that all the extra energy goes to PE rather than KE so the surface temperature need not change.

    Only if mass, gravity or insolation changes is a surface temperature rise the result.

    One doesn’t need a higher surface temperature to push an atmosphere higher.

    All one needs is more energy held by molecules at any height. above the surface.

    As soon as a molecule at height acquires more energy than needed to maintain the gravity induced lapse rate at that height then the parcel of air of which it forms part expands, becomes less dense and being less dense it becomes lighter and so rises.

    The increase in height is a result of density changes in the vertical column and NOT a result of a higher surface temperature.

    The Ideal Gas Laws describe that scenario. Radiative physics does not.

  42. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:14pm: “The stratosphere has stopped cooling… ”

    Read the recent paper from the thread tallbloke posted above 8/16 8:16pm and I took time to find in full for you at 9:16pm. Do you read science at all? There is no authority for your assertion.

    The IGL is good authority; use it all you want within its limitations – note Callendar did not need IGL to any great extent and his predictions are standing the test of time while Stephen’s are not. Did you even read his paper?

    The troposphere hot spot is a GCM issue not a basic science in nature issue. Callendar gets the basic science in nature reasonably correct without any of that controversy.

    “Additional height from composition changes means that all the extra energy goes to PE rather than KE so the surface temperature need not change.”

    Does Stephen know what the potential in PE means? It has potential for pushing up, raising the height, raising volume of the atm. but KE can actually do so. If the composition changes all go to PE then no material volume change happens as I have been pointing out.

    “One doesn’t need a higher surface temperature to push an atmosphere higher. All one needs is more energy held by molecules at any height above the surface.”

    Where does this “more energy” come from Stephen? Stephen continues to have no answer for the resource used up to provide the “more energy” to push the atm. higher and provide A/C to the surface in the face of emissions.

    “The Ideal Gas Laws describe that scenario. Radiative physics does not.”

    This is proof that Stephen has not yet read Callendar’s paper, has not read a modern text book on atm. radiation, makes up “more energy” from nothing to find “surface temperature stays the same.” And Stephen wants to discuss & assign credibility. I am willing to help as shown as I find the subject interesting debate. Stephen needs to do his reading homework as the authorities have done, provide his cites to authority.

    Want to bet the EOH 1931 paper doesn’t “describe that scenario” based on IGL but includes radiative physics when it is available in full? I will. The abstract in top post discusses radiative equilibrium along with convective equilibrium, a good sign EOH31 has more right stuff than ideal gas law.

    That’s it unless Stephen has an epiphany (defn. #3 on dictionary.com).

  43. gallopingcamel says:

    The final paragraph in the abstract is demonstrably false if you believe the EPICA ice core studies. Hulburt is parroting Arrhenius in his 1896 paper here:

    Click to access Arrhenius.pdf

    On page 267 under the heading of “Geological Consequences”, Arrhenius suggests that CO2 variations cause glaciation cycles:
    “….find an explanation for temperature variations of 5 to 10 degrees Centigrade”.

    That sounds plausible until you calculate the sensitivity coefficient. One can excuse Arrhenius who did not have the ice core data. Hulburt on the other hand should know better. Is Hulburt a fool or is making false claims because he expects to be rewarded by the Lysenkoists who hold the purse strings?
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

  44. tallbloke says:

    GC: Hulbert’s paper was written in 1931 🙂

  45. Stephen Wilde says:

    Trick said:

    “If the composition changes all go to PE then no material volume change happens as I have been pointing out.”

    The higher a molecule rises the more gravitational PE it contains.

    Adding gravitational PE without increasing mass MUST involve an increase in height and thus atmospheric volume.

    However the increase in height can be localised if the general circulation changes as a consequence but such a change takes time so some increase in overall volume must occur.

    “Where does this “more energy” come from Stephen?”

    From the sun. The absorption capability of GHGs fractionally adds to the delay in energy flowing through the system. The energy goes to gravitational potential energy and the global air circulation shifts imperceptibly until ToA balance is regained.

    No need for a rise in surface temperature whatever Callendar said though I would expect regional changes in the surface energy distribution.

    As for the stratosphere no longer cooling tallbloke’s link seems to confirm that as far as I can see.

    “Does Stephen know what the potential in PE means? It has potential for pushing up, raising the height, raising volume of the atm.”

    The potential in PE means the ability to gain energy in the form of KE again during the process of falling through the gravitational field.

    PE only arises AFTER the uplift has occurred whereby KE is converted to PE and where GHGs are concerned that uplift is a result of density differentials arising within the vertical column and NOT higher surface temperatures.

  46. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:36pm says: His “more energy” comes: “From the sun. The absorption capability of GHGs fractionally adds to the delay in energy flowing through the system.”

    Stephen cites no authority, simply asserts (makes up) the sun somehow picks up a signal from our emissions to use up more of its resource to provide “more energy” to A/C (refrigerate) the near surface earth atm. needed for his hypothesis surface temperature “stays the same” in face of our emissions. Stephen provides no mention or cite how the sun’s resource knows to provide “more energy” & is processed to exactly cool off only the near surface atm. when needed.

    Stephen – this is another un-cited wild pitch from you when the Callendar paper (with cites and counter-debate) is fully available for your study to learn how atm. science actually works. This paper is not real hard to read either. And they knew it some 75 years ago. Why are you even interested in a thread on EOH1931 paper? You won’t read it.

    “As for the stratosphere no longer cooling tallbloke’s link seems to confirm that as far as I can see.”

    Only as far as Stephen can see, you know not even to a modern atm. radiation text at the end of his arms. I clipped above what scientists conclude verbatim and NOT out of context, this is hardly a “confirm” unless you seek a certain “spin” on facts with stratosphere global mean temperature 1) increasing, 2) decreasing, 3) unchanged over last few decades:

    “… to avoid a continuation of the current perplexing and frustrating situation…effort is essential for assessing future stratospheric climate change without the ambiguities we currently face.”

  47. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Stephen cites no authority, simply asserts (makes up) the sun somehow picks up a signal from our emissions to use up more of its resource to provide “more energy””

    Not what I said at all.

    The solar input stays the same but internal system characteristics change to hold on to that solar energy for a longer period of time.

    As for authority, is that not exactly what GHGs are supposed to achieve?

    I just go on to say that according to the Ideal Gas Laws the system response is equal and opposite because no increased surface temperature is required when the system response occurs entirely above the ground in the vertical atmospheric column.

    I’m afraid Trick shows inability to comprehend.

  48. tallbloke says, August 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    GC: Hulbert’s paper was written in 1931 🙂

    Oooops! Abject posthumous apologies to Hulburt. He did not have the benefit of the EPICA or Vostok ice core data!

    While this gives Hulburt a great excuse for getting it wrong, it does not change my opinion that he was just as wrong as Arrhenius was. The real shame belongs to CAGW zealots such as Thomas F. Stocker who participated in the EPICA research (Luethi et al, 2008 and Jouzel et al, 2007) yet refuse to acknowledge that this data falsifies the Arrhenius hypothesis.

    The Arrhenius (1896) paper is breathtaking in its power and simplicity. Too bad it is false and has been used by the corrupt IPCC to provide a scientific fig leaf to cover a political agenda.

  49. Trick says:

    Stephen 8:54pm: I clipped your words exactly as you wrote them. I comprehend your words. For you to comprehend atm. radiation, read a modern text.

    “The solar input stays the same but internal system characteristics change to hold on to that solar energy for a longer period of time. As for authority, is that not exactly what GHGs are supposed to achieve? …no increased surface temperature is required…”

    It is not. Read & comprehend Callendar’s paper. Then use it in a sentence.

    ******

    I am still looking around for EOH1931. Found a mention:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=LfOwLo3DmJcC&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=hulburt+temperature&source=bl&ots=wX2whYHJ77&sig=wgbEKmwY28bhESUu1zhiMw7sf-s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zPESUomuBYij2QWC2YD4Cw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=hulburt%20temperature&f=false

    Stephen should be interested in the 2nd bulleted item; he won’t be.