“climate models violate the ‘basic physics’ of the 2nd law of thermodynamics”

Posted: May 29, 2014 by tchannon in atmosphere, climate, Incompetence, Measurement, methodology

Reblog from The Hockey Schtick, new paper in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. Pesky radiosonde data again. Maybe the balloon has gone up on models Climate Sim World.

New paper finds climate models violate the ‘basic physics’ of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
A paper published today in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society finds climate models violate the ‘basic physics’ of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow, one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer in the atmosphere.

According to the authors,
“Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfil fundamental physical laws. The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy.”
i.e. entropy always increases and energy always dissipates per the second law of thermodynamics. …

Link to THE HOCKEY SCHTICK and paywalled paper.

If this is correct and 10% is mentioned there a jokes in models but given the long “discussion” wars on the Talkshop I am not surprised if something is wonky with atmospheric heat flow.

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:05pm: “The internal energy of the system stays the same or rather any attempt to destabilise it results in an equal and opposite reaction just as I describe.”

    And yet this did not happen in the flask experiments 5/31 6:13am as I have noted above. Newton’s semi-log plots are linear, there was no equal and opposite reaction in nature as you describe making itself known. It is obvious you have not tested your narrative.

    My intensity boileth over. Scotch, the cure for and cause of, intensity.

  2. Trick says: June 9, 2014 at 9:37 pm

    Will 6:13am: Some decent comments, you earn a scientific method response.

    “Sensitive instruments have proven no bidirectional flux at any frequency or in any direction!”

    Trick: “CERES has sensitive instruments, it detects a difference in flux looking up from a flux looking down. The flux CERES measured IS bidirectional. Same for any radiometer pointed up and then down, or east then west. This bidirectionality cannot be used to extract energy or CERES would do so, this possibility is 100% ruled out by 2LTD and I believe is the root cause you use the word “potential” when the irradiance is real.”

    CERES is an extremely primitive instrument. It does measure flux at three narrowband microwave frequencies. Relative to the temperature of the instrument detector, toward then instrument when an emitter is at a higher temperature, from the instrument outward in the direction of a lower temperature absorber. This instrument cannot measure emissivity of the emitter, nor absorptivity of the absorber, nor distinguish between thermal and electrical noise effects in our electricly charged atmosphere. from the three narrowband noisy fluxii, try to guess at a temperature, then report a fictional BB irradiance, mathematically derived that guessed at temperature. It all is the most corrupt form of metrology ever conceived. This instrument absolutely demonstrates only unidirectional flux. Irradiance is real, a field strength only, never a flux. You again demonstrate your refusal to accept the physical difference between field strength and flux. The units are identical.

    Will: “…Planck, KRL, S-B all show only Radiant intensity (Watts/steradian)…from a surface…and every direction.”

    Trick: Not every direction, Planck limits his original paper to a hemisphere of directions; a surface radiating to itself is ruled out.

    Gee, all of the directions a “surface” can ever radiate to! Still, Watts/steradian remains a potential vector, never a flux, Did you not learn any solid geometry, or is it just that you remain incapable of walking, and simultaneously chew gum?

    Will: ”..Planck, KRL, S-B all show only Radiant intensity (Watts/steradian)…”

    Trick: “Will – Look up the definition of “intensity”. Basically “intensity” can mean whatever you want “intensity” is an Alice-in-Wonderland term; Planck, KRL, S-B were not so careless as to ever use this term – the “quality or condition of being intense” is meaningless for science in this context.”

    No they did not? Radiant intensity did not exist in their lifetime. All Photometric and Radiometric were formally adopted into science in 1976 to replace the often misused catchall “brightness” term. Each photometric and radiometric term is still correctly and precisely described on Wikipeadia, despite all the efforts of William Connolley to deface them all! These new terms also serve to eliminate conflating electromagnetic radiation with some function of temperature.

    Trick: “Using radiant intensity to mean irradiance is akin to using length to mean what to the rest of the world is area.”

    Outside of yourself, the “rest of the world” understand the difference between field strength (radiance “unnormalized” incident upon an area), irradiance, and radiant power crossing that area (flux) that is always limited by any opposing field strenth.

    Trick: “Again, I am not making this up – terminology misuse issues are rampant. This tragedy of radiometry (and photometry) …”

    Only by you! Because for you learning the correct terms and their exact meaning is “to hard”!
    We really need a catchall term like “brightness”, that can mean whatever we want now, so we can continue to fool folk with our self appointed intellegence.

    -snip ranting of someone incapable of understanding the radiometric terms. Its to hard.-

    The title “climate-models-violate-the-basic-physics-of-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics”.
    Is a challenge for “any” including trick, to explain how and why these supposedly well educated physicists, got everything bass ackword!

  3. Tim Folkerts says:

    Arfur says: “… absorption of a photon will occur only when the quantum energy of the photon precisely matches the energy gap between the initial and final states.

    Yes. However, for solids there are generally a large number of state that can absorb pretty much any energy of photon. Or said another way, if the surface is close to a black body and can emit any wavelength of photon, then it can also absorb any wavelength of photon. Even if not close to a BB, there are still plenty of opportunities to absorb a wide variety of photons, even if the surface is “warm”.

    Similarly, a CO2 molecule has vibrational modes that can absorb or emit photons. Unlike the more familiar orbital changes (eg Balmer lines in hydrogen), these vibrational modes can absorb multiple quanta of energy. So even if a CO2 molecule has absorbed one photon (say around 15 um), it can still absorb another one of those same photons. So “warm” CO2 with a quantum of energy in that vibrational mode can still absorb a photon with that quantum of energy, just like a “cold” molecule can.

  4. RKS says:

    “Stephen Wilde says:
    June 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm
    Eric Barnes said:

    “I like to think of WUWT as Real Climate lite.”

    Thanks, that makes me feel better :)”>>>>>

    After my latest session with them I think I’d add Bishop Hill to that category.

    There is a close knit clique on that blog who howl down any post which questions the IPCC back radiation hypothesis.

    They seem to think of themselves as little tin soldiers doing battle with the pro AGW crowd, and regard anything other than a Lukewarmist stance as being harmful to the ‘sceptic cause’. They invade the threads and try to take on the mantle of unofficial censors without any admonishment from the moderator.

    A balanced scientific discussion of climate is now virtually impossible on Bishop Hill, which now seems to see itself as being aimed more at the politics of climate than the science. Even N&Z’s theory of temperature being the product of pressure and insolation is howled down quite unpleasantly, with the data supporting this from eight solar system bodies being dismissed out of hand.

    In fact Andrew Montfort will not allow any posts arguing against the back radiation hypothesis on the ‘Unthreaded’ section.

    AlecM is constanly howled down and is is frequently the butt of quite unpleasant as-homs.

    With respect to the atmospheric greenhouse effect [pressure x insolation], N&Z point out from NASA Diviner data providing average lunar temperature, that with the Earth and Moon having identical regoliths, and both at the same distance from the Sun, The effect of atmosphere on Earth is to raise temperature by around 90K, as opposed to the 33K value incorrectly assumed by the IPCC.

    Which of course makes a complete mockery of the assumed CO2 forcings derived from the incorrect value of 33K.

  5. Trick says: June 9, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    “My intensity boileth over. Scotch, the cure for and cause of, intensity.”

    Indeed a potential! The descovery of Scotch is beond the physical!
    Retired I can no longer afford all the Glenfiddich I wish!
    I now do with Vodka and tomato juice. The same effect, except for the lack of many young lovely nude ladys dancing.

  6. Tim Folkerts says: June 10, 2014 at 5:14 am

    Arfur says: “… absorption of a photon will occur only when the quantum energy of the photon precisely matches the energy gap between the initial and final states. ”

    “Yes. However, for solids there are generally a large number of state that can absorb pretty much any energy of photon. Or said another way, if the surface is close to a black body and can emit any wavelength of photon, then it can also absorb any wavelength of photon. Even if not close to a BB, there are still plenty of opportunities to absorb a wide variety of photons, even if the surface is “warm”.

    Similarly, a CO2 molecule has vibrational modes that can absorb or emit photons. Unlike the more familiar orbital changes (eg Balmer lines in hydrogen), these vibrational modes can absorb multiple quanta of energy. So even if a CO2 molecule has absorbed one photon (say around 15 um), it can still absorb another one of those same photons. So “warm” CO2 with a quantum of energy in that vibrational mode can still absorb a photon with that quantum of energy, just like a “cold” molecule can.”
    *************************************************************
    Please describe how any any “photon”, “wavelet”, “quantum of energy” is ever dispached from the local field strength in the direction of higher field strength. These claims are in opposition to all of Maxwell’s equations,. Nothing can be absorbed if nothing was emitted. Bye Bye back radiation.

    The title “climate-models-violate-the-basic-physics-of-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics”.
    Is a challenge for “any” including trick, or Tim Folkerts to explain how and why these supposedly well educated physicists, got everything bass ackword!

  7. tallbloke says:

    RKS: ““I like to think of WUWT as Real Climate lite.”
    Thanks, that makes me feel better :)”>>>>>
    After my latest session with them I think I’d add Bishop Hill to that category.
    There is a close knit clique on that blog who howl down any post which questions the IPCC back radiation hypothesis.”

    This blog will continue to be a safe haven for people developing alternative hypotheses and the people who want to dispute with them (politely).

    Science should not be about cementing a dominant hypothesis in position by excluding discussion of other hypotheses. A hypothesis should stand or fall on the (de)merit of its supporting evidence and its ability to explain more generally than other hypotheses.

    As it stands, our solar-planetary hypothesis explains the last 1000 years of natural variation (including the modern warm period) better than a co2 theory which cannot hindcast beyond 1950, even with aerosol fudging.

  8. The title “climate-models-violate-the-basic-physics-of-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics”.
    Is a challenge for “any” including trick, or Tim Folkerts to explain how and why these supposedly well educated physicists, got everything bass ackword!

    Is there any evidence that this was mearly stupid or misguided, all else leads to deleberate intentional criminal fraud!

  9. tallbloke says:

    Will, groupthink leads entire institutional faculties off into a nether-world of self conformatory bias and blinkered interpretation of evidence. The history of science is littered with examples. Global communications and the political pressure from those in control of national and international research funding streams has now made the problem acute. How can the ‘community’ back down without trashing very large numbers of reputations and admitting enormous waste of public resources? Not to mention the undercutting of the ‘green energy’ gravy train.

    “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity and greed”

  10. Trick said:

    “in the flask experiments 5/31 6:13am as I have noted above. Newton’s semi-log plots are linear, there was no equal and opposite reaction in nature as you describe making itself known”

    That is simply because the contents of the flask are not able to expand freely towards space due to the weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the flask contents.

    The comparison is invalid as many have already told you.

    For a planetary atmosphere as a whole, as distinct from a parcel of air within an atmosphere there is no restraint on expansion other than the gravitational field itself.

    So, if the atmosphere tries to hold on to more energy, there is nothing to prevent expansion.

    tallbloke said:

    “Science should not be about cementing a dominant hypothesis in position by excluding discussion of other hypotheses”

    You can tell when that is happening when, instead of addressing the specific points made, there is simply a generalised hostile resction with no attempt to address those specific points.

    No one at WUWT attempted to deal with the observed fact that descending air warms at a rate determined by the local lapse rate slope so that proposing DWIR as well amounts to double counting of heat arriving back at the surface from within an atmosphere.

    At least Trick gives the appearance of trying to address specifics even if he misquotes and creates diversions in a struggle to ‘win’ when his cause is lost.

  11. tallbloke says: June 10, 2014 at 7:29 am

    “This blog will continue to be a safe haven for people with alternative hypotheses and the people who want to dispute them (politely).”

    Rodger, OK on your blog I will try to be polite. Please explain why you think politeness or discussion will work to to overcome or even delay the alarmists greenies? AFAIK it truly is “take no prisoners” of the enemy! Only destroy all!

  12. tallbloke says:

    Will: The science discussions on this site are at their most productive when civility is maintained. Everyone needs to let off a bit of steam, and we also run plenty of policy and politics threads for that. Some gentle chiding and ribbing is fine, you get to find out from the regulars where the limits are. If you find yourself fuming while typing, it’s best to sit back and re-read before hitting the submit button, and consider whether your comment would be 25% or more than 50% shorter if you had to remove anything non-factual, and anything referring to a person rather than their (un)scientific arguments.

    If more than half of it would be gone, it’s probably better to edit it yourself than suffer the ignominy of the dreaded moderator [snip] 🙂

  13. tallbloke says: June 10, 2014 at 8:02 am

    Will, groupthink leads entire institutional faculties off into a nether-world of self conformatory bias and blinkered interpretation of evidence. The history of science is littered with examples. Global communications and the political pressure from those in control of national and international research funding streams has now made the problem acute. How can the ‘community’ back down without trashing very large numbers of reputations and admitting enormous waste of public resources? Not to mention the undercutting of the ‘green energy’ gravy train.

    “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity and greed”

    Rodger, I understand all of that, thank you. stupidity happens, greed is somthing else like malice. It does not help when I sit here, getting dronk, and screaming ” What the fuck? over!”

    I am like the bussard on the pole, “patience my ass”, I am hungry, and I am going to go “kill something”, then eat it as I must!

  14. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    June 9, 2014 at 5:57 am

    Konrad – “Do I anywhere claim on this or any other thread that “winds” transport energy out of the atmosphere?”

    Trick – “Yes. You claim winds take an energy amount away from the surface control volume implying lowering surface Tmean right here. Without mentioning the winds replace the same exact amount energy back to the surface because their energy was all dumped in the atm. not space.”

    Konrad – “The buoyancy imbalance so created drives tropospheric convective circulation, which combined with evaporation is the primary energy transport away from the surface.”

    Trick – “If the energy removed isn’t dumped back in the atm., then where IS it dumped Konrad? If not dumped to space or elsewhere, then the same amount of windy up energy removed from surface is replaced back to the surface in windy down energy. No effect on surface control volume Tmean.”

    —————————
    Trick it just won’t work. I have infinite patience. I will pop as many Pinata Weasels as you wish to run around the mulberry bush. (Yes, yes I know, none of them ever contain Skittles….)

    I have never claimed that tropospheric convective circulation removes energy to space. I have always claimed that radiative gases do that. In fact my claim has always been –

    “Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    I will post as helpful list of most of my unchanging empirically supported claims below so that if in future you hope that “forgetting” will wear me down with re-iteration I can just post the link to where you were told for the N’th time…too easy 😉

    1. DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of the oceans.
    2. Radiative gases play a critical role in radiative subsidence of air masses in vertical tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells.
    3. The power of radiative gases to cool our atmosphere is double their power to warm it.
    4. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would super heat.
    5. The surface is far more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at cooling it.
    6. The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”
    7. The effective IR emissivity of the oceans is far below their apparent IR emissivity.
    8. Solar variation drives climate change by UV heating below the ocean thermocline.
    9. Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
    10. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
    11. The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.
    12. Regardless of DWLWIR, without atmospheric cooling our oceans would heat to 80C or beyond.
    13. Radiative gases are the atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism.
    14. The sun heats the oceans.
    15. The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    16. Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
    17. 97% of climastrologists are assclowns.
    18. 3% of climastrologists provably knew they were lying.
    19. Global warming was in effect a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
    20. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
    21. The corpse of the global warming hoax cannot be re-animated nor can it be hidden.
    22. Every activist, journalist or politician who ever vilified sceptics is about to have their public face, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard. No excuses, no exceptions.

    Now, was there anything you were not crystal on Trick?

  15. tallbloke says: June 10, 2014 at 8:54 am

    “Will: The science discussions on this site are at their most productive when civility is maintained. Everyone needs to let off a bit of steam, and we also run plenty of policy and politics threads for that. Some gentle chiding and ribbing is fine, you get to find out from the regulars where the limits are. If you find yourself fuming while typing, it’s best to sit back and re-read before hitting the submit button, and consider whether your comment would be 25% or more than 50% shorter if you had to remove anything non-factual, and anything referring to a person rather than their (un)scientific arguments.”

    Rodger, I agree, that would be best for your well done blog. I will always try.
    I wish you would understand the likes of Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, and Robert Brown, have nothing to add to your blog except same old BS. All should be personally ridiculed, but not so much as your own William Connolley, who has no education. Trick seems new and knowlegable and may possibly be capable of learning, if he gives up the “I know it all”.
    Please I am content with “beats the shit out of me”, but I still insist on trying to learn! My opinions are only my own, for “your” own consideration against the scienterific TRUTH!

  16. Konrad says: June 10, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I will post as helpful list of most of my unchanging empirically supported claims below so that if in future you hope that “forgetting” will wear me down with re-iteration I can just post the link to where you were told for the N’th time…too easy 😉

    1. DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of the oceans.
    2. Radiative gases play a critical role in radiative subsidence of air masses in vertical tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells.
    3. The power of radiative gases to cool our atmosphere is double their power to warm it.
    4. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would super heat.
    5. The surface is far more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at cooling it.
    6. The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”
    7. The effective IR emissivity of the oceans is far below their apparent IR emissivity.
    8. Solar variation drives climate change by UV heating below the ocean thermocline.
    9. Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
    10. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
    11. The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.
    12. Regardless of DWLWIR, without atmospheric cooling our oceans would heat to 80C or beyond.
    13. Radiative gases are the atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism.
    14. The sun heats the oceans.
    15. The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    16. Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
    17. 97% of climastrologists are assclowns.
    18. 3% of climastrologists provably knew they were lying.
    19. Global warming was in effect a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
    20. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
    21. The corpse of the global warming hoax cannot be re-animated nor can it be hidden.
    22. Every activist, journalist or politician who ever vilified sceptics is about to have their public face, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard. No excuses, no exceptions.
    *****************************************************************************************
    I have minor questions of your #6, #7, #8 no dissagrement, just questions.
    With others 1-21 I agree 100%
    With #22 Much to mild! Earthlings, top preditor, on this earth, can and must do much better.
    Into the volcano with all, and all ofsprouts. We must rid this planet of this corruption.

  17. Kristian says:

    Konrad says, June 10, 2014 at 9:59 am:

    “2. Radiative gases play a critical role in radiative subsidence of air masses in vertical tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells.”

    It would be strange if they didn’t play a critical role in radiative subsidence, Konrad. However, general subsidence of air would happen with or without their presence.

    “11. The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.”

    Here you have to add ‘radiative’ to ‘the net effect’ for it to make sense. The overall net effect of the atmosphere on the surface of the earth (land AND ocean) is clearly that of warming. By conductively (conductively/convectively/evaporatively) insulating it. I know you want to argue that the atmosphere is there to let the ocean cool also evaporatively, but it would cool much more effectively if we all of a sudden removed the atmosphere altogether. It would vaporise pretty fast. There would most likely remain a residue frozen solid after the first diurnal cycle, but after a few rounds of direct solar input it would probably all be gone into space.

    “12. Regardless of DWLWIR, without atmospheric cooling our oceans would heat to 80C or beyond.”

    Well, this is atmosphere WITH conductive (cond./conv./evap.) cooling as opposed to WITHOUT. Not atmosphere vs. no atmosphere. Should be specified.

    “17. 97% of climastrologists are assclowns.”

    Hahaha! Yes, I believe by now that this has indeed been empirically proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

  18. Konrad:

    1. Agreed.

    2. Radiative gases play a role but not critical. Cooling with height still occurs without them due to conversion of KE to GPE as work is done in lifting molecules up against gravity.

    3.I agree that they facilitate cooling by providing a means whereby radiation can escape directly to space from the atmosphere without having to be recycled back to the surface first. I think the net effect is zero due to the convective response being equal and opposite.

    4. Disagree due to the fact that convection would still occur without radiative gases. so energy still gets returned to the surface for radiation to space from there.

    5. I think it does both equally.

    6. Agreed.

    7. Not sure what you mean by ‘effective’ and ‘apparent’.

    8. No need to limit it to UV or beneath the thermocline. Wavelengths shorter than IR warm all levels down to about 200 metres. The shorter the wavelength the deeper it goes.

    9. Agreed. They provide a radiative window from within the atmosphere which is absent without GHGs but still have a zero net effect because convection changes to compensate such that less is then radiated from the surface.

    10. Agreed.

    11. Disagree.The weight of the atmosphere fixes the amount of energy required for the latent heat of evaporation so in that sense the atmosphere causes the oceans to warm. The denser (heavier) the atmosphere the warmer the oceans must become in order for the phase change of evaporation to take place against the overlying pressure.

    12. Disagree because there would still be convective overturning and evaporation without radiative gases.

    13. Disagree because temperature would still decrease with height without radiative gases as per 2 above.

    14. Agreed.

    15. Disagree as per 11 above.

    16. Agreed. But it is offset by reduced cooling of the surface.

    17. No comment but an understanding smile 🙂

    18. Ditto.

    19. Agreed.

    20. Agreed.

    21. Agreed.

    22. If cooling commences that would seem likely but if not, the inevitable might be deferred for decades.

    Overall, that list helps with a bit of air clearing between our respective views.

  19. Tim Folkerts says:

    Consider a sound analogy (literally and figuratively).

    Suppose I set up two speakers (or two walls of speakers) at opposite ends of an open field facing each other. Each side is hooked up to a separate amplifier, each projecting simple white noise. Consider a spot half way between the two, where either speaker by itself would be, say, 80 dB (or 10^-4 W/m^2)

    What is the power of the sound waves passing through a square meter half way between the speakers? Well, waves of 10^-4 W/m^2 are heading in opposite directions so the net average power would be zero. Some people seem to think that the best way to understand this would be to say that the two waves are cancelling each other out at the center, and that it would be silent at the center. In fact, the sound would be ~ 83 dB (2 x 10^-4 W/m^2), with real sound waves passing in both directions.

    What if one speaker was turned up to 81 dB (1.26 x10^-4 W/m^2)? The net average power at the center would be [ (1.26 x10^-4) – (1 x 10^-4) ] = 0.26 x 10^-4 W/m^2, You will NOT hear 0.26 x 10^-4 W/m^2 = 74 dB. You will hear 2.26 x10^-4 W/m^2 = 83.5 dB. The net power of 0.26 x10^-4 W/m^2 is still useful in some limited ways, but it does not describe the situation — there is NOT a single wave of 0.26 W/m^2 heading from the louder speaker toward the quieter speaker.

    The sound does not get quieter, it gets louder. There really are two waves passing in opposite directions. There really is “back-sound”.

    ********************************************

    Similarly, two incoherent sources of EM radiation facing each other send out real waves carrying real power (aka real photons) that pass through each other.

    I just realized that the word “incoherent” may be important in the discussion. There are not standing waves set up between two surfaces emitting thermal radiation toward each other (just like two separate violins cannot be used to set up standing waves) . The waves emitted are incoherent, with random fluctuations in intensity. Many people seem to be thinking of infinitely long, perfectly sinusoidal waves coming from the two sources.

  20. Kristian says: June 10, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Konrad says, June 10, 2014 at 9:59 am:

    “11. The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.”

    Here you have to add ‘radiative’ to ‘the net effect’ for it to make sense. The overall net effect of the atmosphere on the surface of the earth (land AND ocean) is clearly that of warming. By conductively (conductively/convectively/evaporatively) insulating it. I know you want to argue that the atmosphere is there to let the ocean cool also evaporatively, but it would cool much more effectively if we all of a sudden removed the atmosphere altogether. It would vaporise pretty fast. There would most likely remain a residue frozen solid after the first diurnal cycle, but after a few rounds of direct solar input it would probably all be gone into space.

    This is the Earth. It is a vast water world with an atmosphere suitable to all manner critters, creachers, varments, even earthlings. How nice to pet on critters, and a licking response of “where’s my food”. What a wonderful planet, just look!
    You seem to wish that it were reduced to your insane mechanical “garbardge”
    Please go find a kitten that will love you, (with a loving where is my food). She will even produce a nice mouse in her mouth, for you my special frend, before she eats it, then again asks where is my food! What a wonderful planet!

  21. Tim Folkerts says:

    Konrad says: “4. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would super heat.”
    But the ground would ‘super cool’ !

    I know your arguments for the atmosphere warming to the warmest temperature of the ground. Even if we accept this, the surface (ie ground and oceans) would still have to be cool. With no radiative gases in the atmosphere, the surface would have to shed (once a steady-state condition is reached) ~ 240 W/m^2 of thermal IR on average since it would absorb ~ 240 W/m^2 of solar power. This would equate to average surface temperatures well below freezing

    Your world would have a warm upper atmosphere above a freezing cold surface. The atmosphere would cool strongly in the last meter or two due to conduction with the cold surface (pretty much everywhere except under the noon-time sun). This is NOT what is seen, and the simplest explanation is that the radiative gases do indeed cool the atmosphere (albeit very ineffectively) at the top, but they WARM the surface and they WARM the bottom of the atmosphere.

  22. tchannon says:

    We’ve been here before.

    There will be dayside convection, nightside inversion and wind.

    Now figure the effect of spin in relation to ground properties.

    However, this whole idea of perfection is faulty, there is no steady state, there is no equilibrium, and critically never is reversible thermodynamics, always irreversible in this universe.

    Show me a non-radiating gas.

  23. Trick says:

    Konrad 9:59am (et.al.): “.. my unchanging empirically supported claims…”

    That are in bulk not equally supported by reasoned analysis.

    I would like to refer Konrad (and y’all) to a less than modern tome that has stood the test of time but I already know it is futile, y’all will avoid Rev. Isaac Watt’s The Improvement of the Mind” from which I quote: “…be not too hasty to erect general theories from a few particular observations, appearances, or experiments.”

    Young Michael Faraday read this work as a bookbinder, then valet & asst. to Humphry Davy – who after surviving a few lab explosions isolated 7 elements once recently discovered electric current became useful in chemistry.

    In later work Faraday went on to improve on Watt’s thinking which applies especially to Stephen: “…take imagination to its limits but draw no conclusions without solid experimental proof.” Faraday learned this the hard way – after being mocked for an error on the equiv. of WUWT of the time. I would add the replicable experiments are generally accepted only if solidly explained & supported by reasoned analysis.

    If you don’t know of Rev. Watts, I would think this (unproven yet probable) Wiki description would appeal around here: “Because he was a Nonconformist, Watts could not attend Oxford or Cambridge, which were each restricted to Anglicans, as were government positions at the time. He went to the Dissenting Academy at Stoke Newington in 1690. Much of the remainder of his life centered around that village, which is now part of Inner London.”

    Similar to life centered around hanging out at TS.

    ******

    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  24. Tim Folkerts says: June 10, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    “Consider a sound analogy (literally and figuratively).

    Suppose I set up two speakers (or two walls of speakers) at opposite ends of an open field facing each other. Each side is hooked up to a separate amplifier, each projecting simple white noise. Consider a spot half way between the two, where either speaker by itself would be, say, 80 dB (or 10^-4 W/m^2)

    What is the power of the sound waves passing through a square meter half way between the speakers? Well, waves of 10^-4 W/m^2 are heading in opposite directions so the net average power would be zero. Some people seem to think that the best way to understand this would be to say that the two waves are cancelling each other out at the center, and that it would be silent at the center. In fact, the sound would be ~ 83 dB (2 x 10^-4 W/m^2), with real sound waves passing in both directions.

    . There really is “back-sound”.”

    ********************************************
    Indeed but there no back transfer of energy to a higher potential (pressure).
    Thank you timmy, I have been waiting for this nonsense, your siganling pressure or variance on a pressure (14.7psi) truely does include
    power received, the exact RMS of your pressure variance wich must be with no energy transfer
    only a creation of entropy with no decernable power transfer in any direction from your AC .
    amplifiers that produce no energy transfer or flux, only entropy.

    ******************************************************************************

    “Similarly, two incoherent sources of EM radiation facing each other send out real waves carrying real power (aka real photons) that pass through each other.”

    ********************************************
    Can you ever demonstrate such, or is it only your fantasy?

    ******************************************************************

    I just realized that the word “incoherent” may be important in the discussion. There are not standing waves set up between two surfaces emitting thermal radiation toward each other (just like two separate violins cannot be used to set up standing waves) . The waves emitted are incoherent, with random fluctuations in intensity. Many people seem to be thinking of infinitely long, perfectly sinusoidal waves coming from the two sources.

    Can you ever realize anything Tim? We are discussing energy transfer from point A to point B.
    How does that ever happen via electromagnetic radiation, and why?

  25. Trick says:

    Will 3:14pm: “Can you ever demonstrate such, or is it only your fantasy?”

    The very 1st demonstration of “such” was a day in 1888 in a very dark room. The EM field was established experimentally for the 1st time and the experiment demonstrated EMF to be bidirectional. Much reasoned analysis then supported the conclusions and just look at the practical application of the results all around us.

    Would you like a description of the events leading up to that day?

    ******

    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  26. tchannon says: June 9, 2014 at 1:29 am

    “So, questions such as water is lifted on high, falls back as liquid at a severely limited rate with energy dissipated as aerodynamic losses. And then losses during splat! Is this accounted? If not how significant is it?”
    The actual transfer is important, 2500 joules/gram chemical latent heat, not a party to Newtonian
    Laws of mass, momentum in this gravitonial field. Whever that one gram is condensed into a tenitsy drissle drop. all 2500 joules of of entropy (energy/some T) is dissapated outward to space. How many 1 gram drizzle drops are condensed per second in this vast atmosphere? None of that energy so exited to space ever returns to this earth. Latent heat of evaporation is always the control on this planets temperature. Quite independent of what the stupid USEPA may do next!

  27. “This is NOT what is seen, and the simplest explanation is that the radiative gases do indeed cool the atmosphere (albeit very ineffectively) at the top, but they WARM the surface and they WARM the bottom of the atmosphere.”

    There is no reason for the surface itself to warm.

    In the lower part of the atmosphere, if a GHG molecule absorbs IR energy from the surface it rises until it is again at the correct temperature for its height along the lapse rate slope. In the process of rising the ‘extra’ energy converts to gravitational potential energy as work is done against gravity.

    In the upper part of the atmosphere the opposite happens.

    Convective overturning alters so as to negate the thermal effect of GHGs.

    The net effect is zero save for short term variations about the mean.

    I am not aware of any proof that GHGs have been observed to cause any long term significant warming at lower levels or cooling at upper levels.

    Some such warming and cooling has been observed but can be attributed to solar variations affecting the ozone balance in the stratosphere and cloudiness in the troposphere.

  28. Tim Folkerts says:

    Will, even if you want to deny the existence of photons, in the end it really doesn’t matter.

    * Some might say 396 W/m^2 of IR leaves a surface and 333 W/m^2 returns.
    * Others might say 63 W/m^2 of IR leaves a surface and none returns.

    Mathematically both lead to the same conclusion — the surface is losing EM energy at a rate of 63 W/m^2. The atmosphere impacts the rate that energy leaves the surface of the earth. If the IR properties of the atmosphere could magically be turned off, EITHER interpretation says 396 W/m^2 of IR would leave the surface and none would return, leading to drastic cooling.

    ************************************************************************

    PS. You ask for ‘proof’ of the existence of photons.
    1) Many explanations have been given. Photons are a standard part of physics and have been for 100 years. You are free to ignore basic physics, but your refusal doesn’t change physics.
    2) Let me turn that around and ask you for ‘proof’ of the existence of ‘electric fields’. Or even the existence of ‘energy’ or ‘momentum’ ! All are simply human attempts to explain the world around us. (indeed, the modern explanation for the electric force involves ‘virtual photons’ as the fundamental explanation, not ‘E fields’)

  29. Trick says:

    Stephen 5:02pm: “There is no reason for the surface itself to warm.”

    There is no reason that Stephen understands for the surface itself to warm.

    The root cause is Stephen doesn’t know the formulation of radiative transfer physics in Hottel 1967 1st 3 intro. chapters and modern day improvements as applied to optical depth of planetary atmospheres.

  30. Trick says:

    Konrad 9:59am “I have never claimed that tropospheric convective circulation removes energy to space….”

    Your claim continues to be inaccurate, that convection cools the surface control volume by removing energy to space rather than being accurate that convection dumps that removed energy into the atm. only to return to surface cv. Right in your own clips.

    “Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    For the TOA control volume. Konrad confuses it with surface control volume once again & continuously, despite being shown the difference.

    Konrad is incorrect for the planetary atm. surface control volume since added well mixed IR active gas adds energy to it taken from above to in part act to increase Tmean in that surface control volume.

    Konrad is correct no increase of Tmean in TOA control volume as added well mixed IR active gas adds no net energy in total – to the atm. in total: what IR active gas giveth, IR active gas taketh away.

  31. The surface itself would warm with the radiative only proposition but if one then introduces conduction, convection and adiabatic uplift and descent all of which vary inversely with the radiative capability of the atmosphere then surface warming is not necessary.

    The more radiation to space can occur from radiative gases the less radiation from the surface will occur and vice versa.

    No more energy can radiate out to space than comes in from space whatever the proportion of radiative gases.

  32. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen says: “The more radiation to space can occur from radiative gases the less radiation from the surface will occur and vice versa.

    No more energy can radiate out to space than comes in from space whatever the proportion of radiative gases.

    This is true, but quite possibly misleading. In this case, LESS radiation from the surface = WARMER temperatures!

    Suppose that the atmosphere blocks ALL of the outgoing thermal IR radiation from the surface so that NO radiation from the surface escapes (perhaps by high clouds or some combination of GHGs that cover the entire spectrum). This is what your first sentence quoted above states — more radiation from the gases (eg 100%) means less radiation from the surface (eg 0%).

    Then by your second statement, the atmosphere must be radiating all that energy — and it must be at the same average temperature as the surface would have been with no atmosphere. But the atmosphere is radiating that energy from high up. The lapse rate will then guarantee that the surface is WARMER then the radiating level.

    The same result is true even if the atmosphere only blocks SOME of the outgoing thermal IR. To give some numbers, suppose a section of ground with emissivity = 1 absorbs 240 W/m^2 of sunlight. In steady-state with no IR properties of the atmosphere, it will radiate 240 W/m^2 of IR to space and be 255 K.

    Now add some GHGs at 10 km altitude that can block 20% of the wavelengths from the ground. If the ground stays @ 255, it will radiate 0.8 * 240 = 192 W/m^2 to space. If the GHGs at 10 km altitude were also 255 K, they would radiate 0.2 * 240 = 48 W/m^2. Again, in agreement with your first statement, the more radiation from the gases (48 W/m^2 vs 0 W/m^2), the less radiation from the surface (192 W/m^2 vs 240 W/m^2).

    But we know that the surface and the atmosphere @ 10 km will not be the same temperature. The atmosphere will cool and emit less radiation (confirming the somewhat vague statement that ‘GHGs cool the atmosphere’); the surface will have to warm and emit more radiation. Assuming a lapse rate of 6 K/km, the solution for this particular scenario seems to be 204 K for the atmosphere (19.6 W/m^2) and 264 K for the surface (220.3 W/m^2) for a total of 240 W/m^2 again in the steady-state condition.

    Of course, you could try other numbers for % blocked and altitude and lapse rate, but the basic result is the same. As long as there is a lapse rate and IR active gases high in the atmosphere, the surface will be warmer than it would have been without the radiative gases high in the atmosphere.

  33. Trick says:

    Stephen 6:14pm: “The surface itself would warm with the radiative only proposition…”

    Surface control volume global (energy out-energy in) is balanced with conduction and convection and radiation.

    Reasoned analysis by Hottel eqn. 3-19 shows hypothetically removing convection and conduction energy transfer UP from surface control volume removes same convection and conduction energy DOWN into surface control volume because exactly none of it dumps out to space, only radiation goes to space. No effect on surface control volume Tmean considering radiative only proposition.

    ******
    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  34. Trick says:

    Photon or EM wave? That is the question. I challenge y’all name an invention (other than colliders) resulted from using photon language.

    Here are useful inventions from using the EM wave language: holography, laser, all of interferometry, on which much of the science of measurement is based, phase conjugation, radar, and interference filters, which have many applications.

    Like certain aspects of climate science, incented by cash from taxpayers et.al., the photon language is popular because prestigious and munificent prizes began to be awarded for flushing “ons” (electron, positron, neutron, meson, and so on) from the jungle, shooting them, and mounting their stuffed heads on laboratory walls, the hunt was on, and increased warp speed now due the Large Hadron Collider.

    ******
    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  35. tallbloke says: June 10, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Will: Head on over to https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/wais-outlet-glacier-being-melted-by-magma-not-co2-global-warming-after-all/ and feel free to vent.
    Thankl you Rodger. I have no need to vent on this interesting event I only write notes then shake my head from side to side

  36. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, June 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm:

    “This is the Earth. It is a vast water world with an atmosphere suitable to all manner critters, creachers, varments, even earthlings.”

    Yes. And?

  37. Tim,

    If the radiative capability of the atmosphere could be 100% there would still be the same lapse rate slope and the same surface temperature because those features are set by mass and gravity not radiative capability of constituent molecules.

    All that would happen is that the radiation to space from each atmospheric molecule with 100% radiative capability would be proportionate to its temperature along the lapse rate slope.

    Most of the exiting radiation would be from the first layer of molecules above the surface which would be the warmest molecules. Those warmest molecules would match the surface temperature on average.

    Due to uneven heating around a rough surfaced rotating sphere there would still be density variations in the horizontal plane so convection would still be present together with the decline in temperature with height since the work done against gravity to keep molecules off the surface would still result in conversion of KE to GPE with height.

    If at any time there were less than 100% radiation from the gases then of course the balance would be from the surface and the only difference one would observe would be a speeding up of the global air circulation system as convection adjusted the energy flows to and from GPE so as to keep the amount of radiation exiting to space stable.

    If the atmosphere had zero radiative capability with 100% radiating to space from the surface then convection would speed up to ensure that enough GPE is converted back to KE at the surface to match energy in from space with energy out from the surface.

    At all times you still have the same lapse rate slope, the same surface temperature and radiative balance with space.

    If at any time convection were to fail in its task permanently (as proposed by AGW theory) then the extra radiation to space from the warmer surface would have to be ADDED to the ability of GHGs to radiate directly to space and the entire system would then lose more energy to space than it received until the atmosphere fell to the ground.

    AGW theory proposes a higher surface temperature giving more radiation to space (cooling) to compensate for the ability of GHGs to radiate downward (warming) for a new thermal equilibrium.

    At the same time those GHGs are letting energy out from within the atmosphere faster than would a non GHG atmosphere (cooling).

    So you are compensating for the assumed warming effect of GHGs twice over. First via more radiation to space from a warmer surface and secondly by allowing outward radiation from within the atmosphere.

    That is double counting.

    If GHGs allow energy to leak out from the adiabatic convective cycle then you can’t have a higher surface temperature emitting more radiation to space as well.

    In reality, changes in convective overturning negate the thermal effects of GHGs whether they would be net warming or net cooling in the absence of convection.

  38. Trick,

    Hottel does not take account of the amount of conduction and convection being inversely variable with changes in atmospheric radiative capability.

    He treats them as neutral in radiative terms but in fact they are not neutral because the conversion of KE to GPE removes its ability to be sensed as heat or to radiate.

  39. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, June 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm:

    “Konrad says: “4. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would super heat.”
    But the ground would ‘super cool’ !”

    Of course it wouldn’t. It would super heat too.

    “With no radiative gases in the atmosphere, the surface would have to shed (once a steady-state condition is reached) ~ 240 W/m^2 of thermal IR on average since it would absorb ~ 240 W/m^2 of solar power. This would equate to average surface temperatures well below freezing”

    There could be no steady state situation in this situation, Tim. The global surface could not possibly shed the entire 240 W/m^2 flux (it would not even be 240 W/m^2, it would be close to 300 W/m^2, 80% larger on average than the solar flux to our real global surface) by radiation directly to space with an atmosphere on top of it. So it would necessarily heat. It would naturally still remain the heat source of the atmosphere, always on average staying warmer than it.

  40. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen says: “Most of the exiting radiation would be from the first layer of molecules above the surface which would be the warmest molecules. Those warmest molecules would match the surface temperature on average.”

    No.

    Most of the radiation from the first layer of molecules above the surface would be absorbed within a few meters (or a few tens or a few hundreds of meters). Basically NO radiation from that layer lowest 100 meters escapes. Basically no radiation from the next 100 meters escapes either. Or the next 100 meters.

    We don’t have to speculate on this. The observed spectra from satellites looking down CLEARLY show that the escaping radiation from CO2 comes from COOL CO2 (~ 220K – 240 K) up near the tropopause, and not from warm, surface-temperature CO2.

  41. Tim

    You specified a 100% radiative atmosphere. You did not specify a 100% CO2 atmosphere.

    Individual gases will release radiation to space preferentially at different heights, that is true.

    However, warm molecules rise and cool molecules fall.

    The lapse rate would remain intact and convection shuffles the gases around as necessary, just as I said.

    If a radiative molecule becomes too warm for its position along the lapse rate slope (absorbing IR from the surface) it will rise and if it becomes too cool for its position along the lapse rate slope (radiating to space) it will fall.

    The average thermal effect of the two processes nets out to zero.

    You could say that the form of global air circulation that convection will work towards is at least partly defined by the heights at which the radiative gases involved prefer to radiate to space.

  42. Tim Folkerts says:

    Kristian says: “It [the ground] would super heat too.”

    Time to ‘put up or shut up’. Gives us some numbers rather than your intuition — either by Kristian or by Konrad who both seem to hold this view.

    Take a planet the size & mass of earth 1 AU from a star like the sun. Give it a completely transparent atmosphere (for both incoming and outgoing radiation) withe the same mass as earth’s atmosphere. Pick a reasonable number for what fraction of the incoming sunlight gets absorbed (70% or 100% seem like a couple reasonable numbers, but feel free to decide on your own number). Pick a reasonable emissivity (0.9 or 1.0 would be simple choices that are not too far from reality). Give the planet whatever rotation rate you want (for simplicity, i would suggest either ‘no rotation’ or ‘fast rotation’). Ignore geothermal energy (and also volcanic hotspots).

    After ‘a long time’ (a few thousand years perhaps, or a few billion years even), what temperature do you predict for the the surface? What temperatures do you predict for the top and bottom of the atmosphere? (You may either give a distribution, or an average). How hot is “superheated” according to your understanding? 255K? 288K? 390K? 5780K? Approaching infinity?

    Since this whole thread started with complaints that models don’t always follow the laws of physics, show is explicitly that your model follows Conservation of Energy. [Hint to get you started: using my suggested ranges above, the hottest part of the ground (and hence the hottest part of the atmosphere) will never be above ~ 132 C)].

    But no vague claims — show (or at least explain) the actual calculations you would use.

  43. Trick says:

    Stephen 7:55pm: “Hottel does not take account..He treats them as neutral in radiative terms..”

    Hottel does not do this. Do you have a Hottel page/paragraph supporting this assertion?

    Once again quoting a confused Stephen using caloric language: “…the conversion of KE to GPE removes its ability to be sensed as heat…”

    Translating to modern language after the caloric fluid “heat” was removed from radiative transfer science as a noun:

    “…the conversion of KE to GPE removes its ability to be sensed as energy (joules)…”

    Which makes no sense. All energy in&out the surface control volume is counted to satisfy the 1st law, no “ability” is removed or affects that accounting from the conserved enthalpy=PE+KE+pV.

    ******

    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  44. Graham W says:

    Tim Folkerts says:

    “We don’t have to speculate on this. The observed spectra from satellites looking down CLEARLY show that the escaping radiation from CO2 comes from COOL CO2 (~ 220K – 240 K) up near the tropopause, and not from warm, surface-temperature CO2.”

    In a comment on WUWT a couple of weeks ago, Robert Brown said:

    “This isn’t the right question. The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

    The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.”

    So it strikes me that lower in the atmosphere CO2 will “almost never” emit a photon, instead just passing energy on to other molecules, and the probability of CO2 molecules emitting photons will increase the higher up the profile you go. So that would explain the outgoing spectra at the TOA being dominated by “cool” CO2 from higher in the atmosphere than lower.

    It also suggests to me that it would be far more difficult for energy to get back to the surface than escape to space…being as how the further back down you go, the lower will be the average amount of time between molecular collisions, and hence the greater the chance of radiation intercepted by a CO2 molecule passing that energy on through collision rather than emission…so how does it ever get back down to the ground!?

  45. Trick says:

    Stephen 7:51pm: “First via more radiation to space from a warmer surface and secondly by allowing outward radiation from within the atmosphere. That is double counting.”

    What’s the difference? The suface is within the atm. Photons don’t have little tags on them saying I’m from surface, I’m from atm.

    Actually what happens is the atm. optical depth increases. Stephen won’t/can’t understand all this as hasn’t boned up on principles of planetary atm. radiative transfer.

    ******
    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  46. Tim Folkerts says:

    Graham says: “So it strikes me that lower in the atmosphere CO2 will “almost never” emit a photon …

    That is not quite what RGB was saying. Lower in the atmosphere CO2 will “almost never” emit a photon BEFORE hitting another atom. When it hits the other atom, the extra energy from the photon will get thermalized and distributed among the surrounding atoms. So perhaps there is 1 in a million chance that this specific excited molecule will emit a photon rather than sharing that energy with surrounding molecules via collisions.

    What you seem to be missing is that the CO2 molecule can also GAIN energy from collisions. So if there are a billion warm molecules, 10% of them (100 million) might be in an excited state at any given moment from random thermal energy, and 100 of those (1 in a million) will emit photons before some collision robs them of that extra energy again.

    For cold molecules, maybe 1% (10 million) will be in an excited state so ~ 10 will emit photons before the next collision. So lower in the atmosphere the warm CO2 will indeed be emitting more photons (per second per mole) than cooler CO2 higher in the atmosphere. (The lower warmer CO2 will also be absorbing more photons per second per mole because there are more around to absorb.)

    (it is not quite that simple, and I invented the numbers, but you should get the point).

  47. Graham W says:

    “What you seem to be missing is that the CO2 molecule can also GAIN energy from collisions.”

    Thanks Tim, but if

    “The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas.”

    Then what difference does it make what has caused the CO2 molecule to be excited in the first place? By which I mean, if it is excited by collision with another molecule or by receiving a photon, the lifetime of that excited state will be longer (lower in the atmosphere) than the mean free time between collisions.

    So the energy gained by CO2 through collision you mentioned is still more likely to be passed on by ANOTHER collision, than to be emitted. So it still seems like, lower in the atmosphere, CO2 molecules “almost never” emit a photon.

  48. Trick asked:

    “What’s the difference? The surface is within the atm”

    The surface radiating directly to space through an atmosphere is a separate process from molecules within the atmosphere radiating direct to space.

  49. Trick said:

    “…the conversion of KE to GPE removes its ability to be sensed as energy (joules)…”

    Which is nonsense.

    How does a thermometer sense gravitational potential energy ?

    The term ‘heat’ is all important since that refers to the difference between kinetic energy which is heat and GPE which is not.

    Furthermore, only KE participates in a radiative exchange.

    The pool of GPE in an atmosphere is effectively a thermal reservoir which can remove KE (heat) or return it as necessary to maintain radiative balance with space.

    Trick asked:

    “Hottel does not do this. Do you have a Hottel page/paragraph supporting this assertion?”

    It is self evident from his conclusion. He simply removes it from the equation and asserts no change in radiative fluxes.

    If he had allocated the proper effect of varying conduction and convection on the radiative fluxes then his conclusion would have to have been different.

    You cannot have the same unit of energy both radiating to space AND being engaged in holding up the atmosphere in the form of GPE.

    I has to be one or the other and varying convection allows adjustments to be made between KE and GPE to maintain radiative balance with space.

  50. Tim Folkerts says:

    So the energy gained by CO2 through collision you mentioned is still more likely to be passed on by ANOTHER collision, than to be emitted.”

    Yes, but the warm CO2 is more likely to be in the excited state to have a chance to emit a photon.

    Using the hypothetical numbers above, in the lower atmosphere at a particular temperature 10% might be in an excited state. Exactly which molecules that is will change a billion times per second as they collide, but it will always be 10% at that temperature. And that 10% of excited molecules will emit 100 photons in that time.

    In the upper atmosphere where the molecules are colder, 1% are excited. Since the atmosphere is cooler and less dense, the molecules will trade this energy around less frequently — maybe 10 million or 100 million times per second. But regardless of how often they trade the energy around, 1% are always excited and those will produce 10 photons.

  51. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen says: “The surface radiating directly to space through an atmosphere is a separate process from molecules within the atmosphere radiating direct to space.”

    No. The two processes are intimately interconnected. If the atmosphere can radiate directly to space, then it can also BLOCK radiation from the surface, preventing it from escaping to space. Radiation to space from the atmosphere occurs INSTEAD OF radiation from the surface, not IN ADDITION TO radiation to the surface.

  52. Graham W says:

    But regardless of what percentage of molecules are on average in an excited state due to temperature, lower in the atmosphere there is greater pressure, and hence less average time between molecular collisions.

    If mean free time between collisions duration of excited state, photon is emitted.

    Duration of excited state is presumably fixed for all CO2 molecules regardless of location in atmosphere or by what means it has reached that state.

    Time between collisions decreases the lower you are in the atmosphere.

    How can that not mean CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere emit more photons than molecules lower in the atmosphere? That fits the observations at TOA too.

  53. Graham W says:

    Lol, this bit:

    “If mean free time between collisions duration of excited state, photon is emitted.”

    Was meant to read:

    “If mean free time between collisions is less than the duration of the excited state, no photon is emitted.

    If mean free time between collisions is greater than the duration of the excited state, a photon is emitted”

    I put in “less than” and “greater than” symbols and that must have messed up the post somehow.

    [moderator, HTML makes a mess, rather tricky doing certain things. You need to type in escape codes. &lt; produces < and don’t ask how awkward that was… –Tim]

  54. Tim

    Precisely my point.

    Although they are separate processes they are indeed intimately interconnected in just the way you say.

    If one increases the other decreases to keep radiation to and from space in balance.

    One cannot achieve that with the radiative only solution because one needs that non radiative reservoir of GPE to be able to make the necessary adjustments when the radiative capability of the atmosphere changes.

    Once you accept that increasing one decreases the other you need also accept that increasing radiation to space from the atmosphere should (all else being equal) involve a reduction of surface temperature so that the surface radiates less to space.

    Instead, AGW theory focuses on DWIR only and proposes a HIGHER surface temperature but such a higher surface temperature must radiate MORE to space and not less.

    Do you not see the logical flaw in AGW theory ?

    You have more going out from within the atmosphere PLUS more going out from the warmed surface which is the opposite of what you proposed.

    What happens in reality is that if radiation leaks to space directly from the atmosphere the energy taken back to the surface as heat in the adiabatic descent phase is less than is taken up in the ascent phase.

    That reduces the KE reappearing from GPE at the surface which in turn reduces radiation to space from the surface leaving total outgoing radiation in balance with incoming.

    That satisfies your proposition.

    The thing is that the surface temperature doesn’t need to drop because the extra heat at the surface is due to the need to support the mass of the atmosphere in addition to the surface’s contribution to radiation to space. The weight of the atmosphere remains the same so surface temperature stays the same but the speed of the adiabatic cycle changes instead so as to rebalance the proportions of KE and GPE within the reconfigured atmospheric circulation.

    With highly radiative atmospheric gases you get a slow convective circulation because less energy needs to be returned to the surface for radiation to space (the atmosphere does most of it).

    With a non radiative atmosphere you get a fast convective circulation because the surface has to do all the radiating to space and the descent phase of the adiabatic cycle has to deliver energy back to the surface (as heat) fast enough.

    Total energy within the system stays the same as does surface temperature and the lapse rate slope.

    Convection holds the balance between the radiative exchange with space and the conductive exchange between surface and atmosphere by speeding up or slowing down as necessary.

  55. Tim Folkerts says:

    Graham says: ““If mean free time between collisions is less than the duration of the excited state, no photon is emitted.

    No, that is not the way it works. The time it takes to emit a photon is not fixed. It is more like nuclear decay — there is a chance each second (or each billionth of a second) of emitting a photon if an atom is in an excited state. Sometimes the excited molecule would emit a photon in less than the average time; sometimes the excited molecule would emit a photon in more than the average time. Occasionally an excited molecule will emit a photon before the next collision. Whether one molecule has the extra energy for 1 second or 1000 molecules have the extra energy for 1/1,000 th of a second sequentially (or 1 billion molecules have the energy for 1 billionth of a second), the odds of emitting a photon should be about the same.

  56. Trick says:

    Stephen diverts attention again 10:48pm: “How does a thermometer sense gravitational potential energy ?”

    Pull the nail it is hooked on.

    “Furthermore, only KE participates in a radiative exchange.”

    Nope. None of the resulting thermometer KE after pulling the nail participates in radiative exchange.

    “The pool of GPE in an atmosphere is effectively a thermal reservoir..

    No. This is meaningless. Enthalpy=PE+KE+pV is meaningful, you have to give the PE value a zero ref. so the PE reservoir could potentially be made any size you want. Can’t create energy from nothing Stephen.

    “It is self evident from his conclusion. He simply removes it from the equation and asserts no change in radiative fluxes.”

    Stephen imagines this. Hottel does NOT simply remove any energy from the balance eqn.; all natural energy is accounted. Can’t get a Tmean change from redefining the PE zero ref.

    “…varying convection allows adjustments to be made between KE and GPE to maintain radiative balance with space.”

    If vary convection up, more convection comes down; convection does not go to space & get lost. No effect on radiative balance either in surface cv or TOA cv.

  57. Graham W says:

    Thanks Tim, that was the bit that needed explaining as I had assumed it was just a fixed amount of time.

    So I can see that there will be emission of photons by CO2 even lower in the atmosphere. However it still seems logical that the higher up you go in the profile the greater the chance there is of emission by CO2 molecules, though there is lower percentage by volume of excited molecules, because of the difference in free time between collisions thanks to the pressure difference.

  58. Gail Combs says:

    Will Janoschka says: @ June 10, 2014 at 9:12 am

    …..I understand all of that, thank you. stupidity happens, greed is something else like malice. It does not help when I sit here, getting drunk, and screaming ” What the fuck? over!”

    I am like the buzzard on the pole, “patience my ass”, I am hungry, and I am going to go “kill something”, then eat it as I must!…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    After years and years of pointing out the outright lying and data manipulation I think there are a lot of us getting to feel that way. There are times you want to grab someone like a politician or academic and shake them while screaming in their face. Especially when you know their idiotic policies and deceptions are causing people to die.

    I will say I am disappointed that WUWT & Bishophill have become staid and I am glad Tallbloke hosts the more cutting edge theories because it is needed.

    If no one is willing to take a walk on the wild side, to push the envelop to ask “What if” Civilization stagnates and dies.

    E.M. Smith (ChiefIO) had a comment on politics that also applies to CAGW.

    …It does not matter much if they are a ‘Progressive / Aso-Liberal (American Social Liberal, a kind of socialist – as opposed to the Classical Liberal of the U.K.) / Socialist / Leftist’ or whatever other name that group has cooked up for themselves lately. (They have a long history of re-branding and trying to be a new fresh advertizing name in front of the same package of failed Central Authority & Control. It is always the same old Marxist stale fail crap…..

    ….So now, a good 30 or 40 years into the American slide into Central Authority & Control (whatever you call it, and if ‘left’ or ‘right’ labeled), we have a nice comfortable Police State. The Police State, like the farm, is a very comfortable, secure, and well fed place, with nice cages to live in; right up until the Farmer gets hungry…

    Now we are nearing the end game. Collapse of cultures and Empire moves slowly some times. It can take decades, or even centuries. But the end game tends to the same profile. The People discover they are in comfortable cages, but not being fed as well nor protected as well as they thought. The see a very few with untold power and wealth abusing their position. Folks are forgiving, and some are a bit slow, but eventually the day comes where they realize they are not getting all that good a deal. Well, that’s all it takes, really. Not some giant revolution. A few folks will make that happen. The major part of the collapse is hidden below the water line. That is the simple “failure to support” the power structure. Little things, like me talking to my son about volunteering for the military. Which way that conversation goes depends on the larger context. Or the willingness to get up and go to work every day. If, as a grunt, you get about the same ration of chow in the slop trough if you pull the plough or just lay around the pen, well, laying around the pen looks more pleasant. Like the conscripts in Italy who had a mediocre performance under Mussolini (and his “Bundle” / Fascist flavor of Socialism – with focus on labor unions (the ‘bundle’) and Central Control of businesses – the first “Third Way” or “Market Socialism” – currently being resurrected as the darling of The Left under a new name).

    Every day, someone has to make the machine we call civilization work. That works best as a “Self Organizing System”. A distributed set of independent actors. Private enterprise. FREE Markets (not ones regulated to death and under Central Control). Individual contributed welfare via things like churches. (not the bogus lie based ‘contributions’ that are forced from folks by law and taxes – any ‘contribution’ that is not voluntary is NOT a contribution, it is an extortion…) We simply must have those ‘bottom up’ self organizing systems or we will fail. Look at all of history. Central Authority grows until it fails, then it fails spectacularly. Every single time. Usually in wars, often with failure of food production and distribution, frequently with a great reduction in the “Elite”… (Remember the “French Haircut” of the French Revolution…) It takes a lot to reach that point, but well before then, folks just stop showing up to crank the machine. Or they work it only enough to avoid punishment; but well below what a free people will do. As Central Control grows, the regular folks struggle for a while, but then just adapt. It doesn’t take much to keep us happy, and we can do that for ourselves. Unlike power hungry Central Authoritarians, we don’t need admiration from anyone (above or below), nor vast wealth, nor power driven ego. We like things like chocolate chip cookies, beer, a bit of TV, maybe a video game, and some time in bed. Pretty easy to do that, even “all on your own”. Basically, we don’t need them. They need us. We can just walk away…..

    FROM: Dear Ms Merkel – phone encryption

  59. Tim Folkerts says:

    Stephen says: “Precisely my point.”
    Unfortunately you seemed to misunderstand my actual point, and you miss what I was actually saying. Read it again.

    “If one increases … ”
    “Once you accept that increasing one decreases the other ..”

    You are being sloppy in your thinking here – you need to define precisely WHAT is increasing and decreasing.

    “but such a higher surface temperature must radiate MORE to space and not less.”
    And this is the core of the problem of your inexact nomenclature.

    The higher surface temperature must radiate more OVERALL, but because much of that radiation gets absorbed by the atmosphere, it radiates less TO SPACE than the bare surface would have with no atmosphere.

  60. Graham W says:

    Thanks Moderator Tim.

    My HTML knowledge is even &It; my physics knowledge

  61. Gail Combs says:

    Graham W says: @ June 10, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    In a comment on WUWT a couple of weeks ago, Robert Brown said…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Seems like the Gallopingcamel, got RGB thinking when he posted Robinson and Catling model closely matches data for Titan’s atmosphere over at Digging in the Clay (to topple the false idols of CAGW)

    In the comments he said:

    ….How can half of the absorbed energy be re-radiated downwards when the majority has been absorbed by nearby molecules via collisions long before a photon can be emitted?….

    …CO2 has many absorption lines but my personal favorite is the one at 15 microns (wave number 667.7). It takes many microseconds for an excited CO2 molecule to release a photon while the mean time between collisions with nitrogen/oxygen molecules near sea level on Earth is <0.2 nano-seconds. Thus it is that the vast majority of exciited CO2 molecules give up their energy to the "bulk of the atmosphere" (as Arrhenius would say) by collision before they have time to radiate a photon.

    The collision time constant is directly proportional to pressure, other things such as temperature being equal. In contrast, CO2 molecules in the stratosphere are much more likely to radiate a photon isotropically so half the radiation will return to the surface or the cloud tops. Will it matter? No it won't….

    And that simple observation based on known physics just shot CAGW DEAD!

    Unfortunately CAGW is a zombie and just keeps coming back from the dead.

    Anyone have a stake and some garlic?

    Or at least a steak and some garlic, a bit of pepper, some mushrooms… We can have a last meal before the idiots ban cows, sheep and goats in the name of saving the planet from the EVIL CO2 molecule.

  62. tchannon says:


    Hover a mouse and you can see some codes
    http://www.escapecodes.info/

  63. Tim said:

    “The higher surface temperature must radiate more OVERALL, but because much of that radiation gets absorbed by the atmosphere, it radiates less TO SPACE than the bare surface would have with no atmosphere.”

    You miss my point.

    The higher surface temperature, in radiating more overall, will send more out to space than did the lower temperature even after allowing for the alleged effect of more GHGs. That is what a higher equilibrium temperature involves. The higher temperature sends more radiation out overall which compensates for the alleged blocking effect and restores equilibrium but at the expense of a higher surface temperature.

    That cannot be right because you have left the increased outward radiation from the atmosphere itself out of the equation.

    The simplest description is as follows:

    i) More GHGs send more radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

    ii) That energy leakage to space weakens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns less GPE to the surface as KE and the surface cools.

    iii) DWIR from the extra GHGs compensates for the weakening of convective overturning and leaves surface temperature as before.

    Or, in reverse:

    i) Less GHGs send less radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

    ii) That reduced energy leakage to space strengthens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns more GPE to the surface as KE and the surface warms.

    iii) Reduced DWIR from less GHGs compensates for the strengthening of convective overturning and leaves the surface temperature as before.

    AGW theory misses out the non radiative thermal effect of the descent phase of convective overturning and thus breaches the Laws of Conservation of Energy.

    The Trenberth cartoon shows a figure of 102 Wm2 for the ascent phase but erroneously attempts to deal with it by proposing 102 Wm2 more DWIR but you can’t do that because that 102 Wm2 went to GPE as a result of the work done against gravity during uplift which is not heat and therefore cannot radiate downward.

    My simple solution deals with that error.

  64. Clarification:

    The higher surface temperature sends more radiation out to space than it would have done at the lower temperature with the same amount of GHGs.

    The rest of my last post stands.

  65. Trick said:

    “If vary convection up, more convection comes down; convection does not go to space & get lost. No effect on radiative balance either in surface cv or TOA cv.”

    If radiation to space leaks from within the atmosphere during convective overturning then the descent
    is indeed weaker than the ascent and vice versa.

    That affects radiation from the surface as I said to Tim above.

    The surface cannot use the same energy to both radiate to space and hold up the atmosphere.

    You cannot remove GPE by pulling out the nail it is hooked on without the atmosphere falling to the surface.

    GPE is supported by surface temperature. If one allows that ‘nail’ to radiate to space the atmosphere cannot continue to be supported.

    The additional surface temperature above S-B is used in supporting the weight of the atmosphere against gravity and during that process it is not available for radiation to space.

  66. Konrad. says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    June 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm
    Konrad says: “4. Without radiative gases our atmosphere would super heat.”
    But the ground would ‘super cool’ !
    ———————————————
    The ground would super cool? Utterly false.

    Without radiative gases, the atmosphere could not act to cool the oceans which cover 71% of the planets surface. Without atmospheric cooling the oceans become an evaporation constrained solar pond with temps topping 80C.

    The oceans are not a “near blackbody”, they are a UV/SW selective surface with an effective IR emissivity less than 0.8. (NO! Don’t try linking to “apparent” emissivity garbage, only measurements with background IR reflection eliminated are valid).

    Do you dare claim that DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans? Do you dare claim that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming?

  67. Konrad. says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    June 10, 2014 at 10:54 am
    ——————————–
    “I have minor questions of your #6, #7, #8”

    Will, happy to answer –
    6. The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”

    Climastrologists greatest mistake was treating the oceans as a near blackbody, a material with an emissivity near 1.0. That is to say that material that emits and absorbs a full spectrum of radiation close to a Plank curve for a theoretical black body. “selective surface” refers to a material that responds differently to different frequencies of radiation of radiation and may have an IR emissivity less than 1.0. Liquid water is one such material. Firstly any transparent material which absorbs UV/SW at depth and has a slow internal rate of conductive/convective energy transport will reach a far higher equilibrium (ultimate) temperature when heated by an intermittent UV/SW source that a similar material that absorbs radiation only at the surface.

    A simple experiment you can try –

    When placed in full sun for around 3 hours, the average temperature of Block A will be around 20C higher than Block B. Base temperature differential can be as high as 40C. If SW illumination is intermittent as on our planet a distinct difference in surface temp can be observed. However if the blocks are illuminated with the same power of IR radiation no differential is observed. This is a demonstration of the difference between “selective surface and “near blackbody”

    Any guesses as to how climastrologists treated our oceans? That’s right Block B! The phrase “snivelling idiots” is applicable here.

    7. The effective IR emissivity of the oceans is far below their apparent IR emissivity.

    In treating the oceans as a “near blackbody” climastrologists have falsely claimed that the IR emissivity of water is near 1.0, with a figure of 0.95 typically being used. However this figure should only be used for setting IR instruments for measuring water in a background IR situation. Water reflects some IR, but because it is reflected not just from the surface but the first 100 microns depth, this can appear as emission. To measure the true emissivity of water you need to measure under a cryo cooled “sky”. For instance using an IR thermometer set to 0.95 you will notice an instant reading drop of around 15C for 40C water when shielded by a -40C plate, yet the actual surface temperature hasn’t changed. All that happened was most reflected IR was eliminated.

    Because climastrologist used apparent emissivity for the oceans and ignored the selective surface effect they came to the inane conclusion that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling the oceans would cool to -18C. The reality is that without atmospheric cooling the oceans would top 80C.

    I’m not sure even “snivelling stupidity” can cover a 98C error…

    8. Solar variation drives climate change by UV heating below the ocean thermocline.

    Because climastrologists treat the oceans as a near blackbody, they claim that a 0.1% variance in TSI (total solar irradiance) cannot cause climate change. However UV frequencies can vary by as much as 25% between solar cycles. These are the frequencies that penetrate deepest into the oceans, even below the diurnal overturning layer. Evaporation provides a themostat to the upper ocean but energy that penetrates below the overturning layer can accumulate and cause changes over the long term. With a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth, UV-A variance is well strong enough to account for the 0.8C change over 150 years. CO2 need not apply.

  68. Graham W says:

    Gail Combs says “And that simple observation based on known physics just shot CAGW DEAD!

    Unfortunately CAGW is a zombie and just keeps coming back from the dead.

    Anyone have a stake and some garlic?

    Or at least a steak and some garlic, a bit of pepper, some mushrooms… We can have a last meal before the idiots ban cows, sheep and goats in the name of saving the planet from the EVIL CO2 molecule.”

    Hi Gail, I’m not sure if a stake and garlic will work for zombies, that’s more for vampires! What CAGW needs is a good shot to the head, to destroy the brain! I’d say the “brain” in CAGW’s case is the Greenhouse Effect…does the Robinson & Catling paper provide that headshot? It doesn’t get much of a mention outside of these circles it seems. It doesn’t seem to have troubled for instance Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science and The Guardian fame. There isn’t a post on it at WUWT either. What happens if climate scientists simply refuse to acknowledge that any of their beliefs have been challenged!?

    The trouble is if you keep shooting the body of the zombie, or the arms and legs, it just keeps coming. Got to aim for that head…

  69. Tim Folkerts says:

    Kondar says: “The ground would super cool? Utterly false.”

    Let me repeat myself, since you are repeating yourself.

    Tim Folkerts says: June 10, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    Time to ‘put up or shut up’. Gives us some numbers rather than your intuition … If you know my answer is “utterly false” it should not be hard to come up with some calculations for temperatures to show how I am wrong. And remember, you must be able to satisfy conservation of energy — particularly that (total power in to the earth as a whole) ≈ (total power out from the earth as a whole) once the system has settled into a stable temperature pattern.

    [HINT: Your solution with a warm surface will never satisfy conservation of energy, so all the rest of your intuition is leading you astray.]

  70. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, June 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm:

    “And remember, you must be able to satisfy conservation of energy — particularly that (total power in to the earth as a whole) ≈ (total power out from the earth as a whole) once the system has settled into a stable temperature pattern.

    [HINT: Your solution with a warm surface will never satisfy conservation of energy, so all the rest of your intuition is leading you astray.]”

    Sigh. Still on about this, Tim? “…once the system has settled into a stable temperature pattern.” Yup, that’s what your ‘intuition’ is telling you, isn’t it? That the atmosphere can not release its absorbed energy from the surface, which will continue to come in, by radiation to space, but will still somehow reach a steady-state condition. Just so that you can be right. That’s your base premise. Well, it’s wrong.

    There will be no steady state in this particular situation, Tim. It couldn’t. The sun is still around, feeding the surface with energy. There’s an atmosphere on top of it. Conductively/convectively coupled with it. The atmosphere is the heat sink (cold reservoir) of the surface. I doesn’t just at some arbitrary point stop being that. Simply because you need and want it to. Live with it.

    As I’ve told you before, Tim: Maths won’t help you as long as it’s based on flawed premises. Then it will simply reinforce your mis-/preconceptions.

  71. Tim Folkerts says:

    PS EVEN IF the emissivity is as low as 0.7, that would still make the average ocean surface temperature about 279 K (instead of 255 K). This is STILL too cool.

    PPS Here is a satellite image from the Pacific near Guam. A back-of-the-envelop calculation based on that spectrum and typical water temperatures in the area suggest an emissivity near 0.9 for the ocean. That tends to agree with all the standard references and disagree with your results.

  72. Tim Folkerts says:

    Konrad says: “… but will still somehow reach a steady-state condition.”
    Yes, it will. The only other option is that it would NOT asymptotically approach some stable temperature pattern and would continue to warm (or cool) forever.

    You seem to forget that the surface itself can radiate directly to space, and this radiation increases with T^4 power. As the surface warms, it radiates more power to space (but of course receives the same power from the sun). This powerful feedback maintains stability.

    Again — simple conservation of energy. The surface receives an average of 240 W/m^2. If it loses more than that, it cools. If it loses less than that it warms. A surface at 255 K loses that much simply from IR radiation to space (on our hypothetical planet with no IR gases), so it neither warms nor cools. Of course, it warms during the day and cools during the night, but it cannot get above 255 K average.

  73. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, June 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm:

    “Konrad says: “… but will still somehow reach a steady-state condition.””

    I’m not Konrad.

    “Yes, it will.”

    No it won’t.

    “The only other option is that it would NOT asymptotically approach some stable temperature pattern and would continue to warm (or cool) forever.”

    Yes. Exactly. That’s why this would not be a stable situation and could never be. That’s why we need the radiative gases, to let the atmosphere cool to space. The system would simply continue to heat until the atmosphere started being shed into space from excessive thermal expansion. So, no, not ‘forever’, Tim.

    “You seem to forget that the surface itself can radiate directly to space, and this radiation increases with T^4 power.”

    Er, no. You seem to ‘forget’, Tim, that the solar-heated surface is naturally and automatically conductively/convectively coupled to the atmosphere lying on top of it, in direct thermal contact with it. You can’t just block out conductive heat transfer (set it mathematically to 0) and be back in a purely radiative situation, Tim. With cooling down to a radiative equilibrium rather than heating. That’s not how the real world works. And you know that. So why continue this charade?

  74. Tim Folkerts says:

    Sorry about the name confusion …

    ” You can’t just block out conductive heat transfer (set it mathematically to 0) and be back in a purely radiative situation, Tim. “

    You, on the other hand, must stop violating conservation of energy! You can’t just block out radiative heat transfer. First conserve energy .. then worry about the rest of your hypothesis.

    There is only P_in = 240 W/m^2 of average power coming in. If the surface is warming, then some power P_warming is required for that. If the atmosphere is warming by conduction from the surface, then some power P_atm is required for that. Then the power left to be radiated by IR, P_IR is
    P_in – P_warming – P_atm > 240 W/m^2.

    The surface must be colder than 255 K (on average) to do this (or 279 K if we bump the emissivity down to an unreasonable 0.8).

    The surface will asymptotically head toward a situation like this. The atmosphere will head asymptotically toward some similar temperature (perhaps a bit warmer because it can warm effectively from the warmest places on earth, it it can’t cool effectively at the cool areas). At this point, P_warming = 0 and P_atm = 0 (ie I just ‘blocked out’ conductive heat transfer).

    The BEST CASE for surface temperature is when the surface has settled to an average of ~ 255 K.. Only at LOWER surface temperatures can there to conduction TO the atmosphere. At any warmer temperature there would have to be conduction FROM the atmosphere to make up the deficit.

    ******************************************************************

    Your solution, on the other hand, has P_IR > 240 W/m^2, P_warming > 0 and P_atm >0, so you are necessarily using well over 240 W/m^2 of power, but only putting in 240 W/m^2.

    *******************************************************************

    And at this point, there is reason to keep discussing. I am convinced that you are violating the 1st and 2nd Laws. You are also incorrectly considering the atmosphere as basically an infinite “heat sink (cold reservoir)” for energy from the surface. (If the atmosphere is a cold reservoir, then it will not warm as you claim; if it warms as you claim, you cannot call it a thermal reservoir).

    Conversely, you are convinced I am wrong.

    We have both heard the arguments. Everyone else here was as well. It is not worth my time to continue a one-on-one discussion. So we will just have to call it a stalemate until one of us learns some more physics and recognizes that the other is indeed on the right track.

  75. Trick says: June 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Will 3:14pm: “Can you ever demonstrate such, or is it only your fantasy?”

    “The very 1st demonstration of “such” was a day in 1888 in a very dark room. The EM field was established experimentally for the 1st time and the experiment demonstrated EMF to be bidirectional. Much reasoned analysis then supported the conclusions and just look at the practical application of the results all around us. Would you like a description of the events leading up to that day?”

    Sure, an EM field first established in 1888!!! per trick. please try to use scientific or technical terms. For example vernacular EMF is a rock band. Technically EMF means electromotive force, A potential measured in volts. It has no direction at all. To generate an electromagnetic field that forcemust be bipolar alternating, is that what you mean?
    J.C. Maxwell wrote the book, several, on all types of electromagnetic fields, propogation thereof, and the resulting flux or power transfer, for both electrically and thermally generated electromagnetic radiation (flux). Unfortunatly he died in 1879, nine years before your trick. His equations clearly show that flux (decoupling of power) is always spontanious, and always in the direction of a lower field strength. No exceptions!! Electromagnetic field strength, measured in Watts/steradian, or Watts/steradian x m^2 is a vector quantity. Any detached flux in any direction is always limited by an opposing field vector at each frequency.

    Trick says: June 10, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    “Photon or EM wave? That is the question. I challenge y’all name an invention (other than colliders) resulted from using photon language.”

    How about a semiconductor surface photon detector!! When cooled sufficiently, and at low photon flux, one can actually watch the act of 0.1 ev photon creation of a minority carrier, via a scanning electron microscope.
    *******************************************
    The title of this thread insists on the basic errors in radiative/conductive/convective physical concepts..

  76. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    June 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    ————————————–
    “PS EVEN IF the emissivity is as low as 0.7, that would still make the average ocean surface temperature about 279 K (instead of 255 K). This is STILL too cool.”

    Nice try but it won’t wash. I would consider that you are being intentionally disingenuous. I made two clear statements –
    6.The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”
    7.The effective IR emissivity of the oceans is far below their apparent IR emissivity.

    And what did you do? Ignored the the one you couldn’t cope with. In claiming an equilibrium temperature of 279K for IR emissivity of 0.7, you have just pulled the old climastrology trick. You have treated absorption as equal to emissivity. You have just plugged 0.7 into a standard SB calc.
    YOU CAN NOT DO THAT FOR SELECTIVE SURFACES!

    Just because the effective IR emissivity of water could be as low as 0.67 (as per older texts) this does not mean that its ability to absorb UV/SW has been reduced from 0.92 (8% reflection)

    “PPS Here is a satellite image from the Pacific near Guam. A back-of-the-envelop calculation based on that spectrum and typical water temperatures in the area suggest an emissivity near 0.9 for the ocean. That tends to agree with all the standard references and disagree with your results.”

    What did I say –
    “NO! Don’t try linking to “apparent” emissivity garbage, only measurements with background IR reflection eliminated are valid”
    – and what did you do? But of course. You came back without an IR emissivity measured without background radiation.

  77. Konrad says:

    Kristian says:
    June 11, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    ——————————-
    Kristian,
    You are right over the target. The oceans need the atmosphere to cool and the atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool.

    But even ignoring the problem of the oceans not being any where close to a “near blackbody”, a surface would still be conductively heating the atmosphere. I have found by empirical experiment that for a moving gas atmosphere with poor gas conductivity, the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.

    Guess what climastrologists claim? They say that the surface has the same power to conductively heat and cool the atmosphere. This claim is also provably false –

  78. Konrad. says: June 11, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Will Janoschka says: June 10, 2014 at 10:54 am
    ——————————–
    “I have minor questions of your #6, #7, #8”
    ———————————————————-
    ” Will, happy to answer -”

    Konrad, my minor inquery is in all three is your minimization of the extent of the error and intentional fraud. I can supply comment for your consideration. Please also consider my attack on the real “effilump of error and intentional fraud.
    ———————————————————
    # 6. “The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”

    Climastrologists greatest mistake was treating the oceans as a near blackbody, a material with an emissivity near 1.0. That is to say that material that emits and absorbs a full spectrum of radiation close to a Plank curve for a theoretical black body. “selective surface” refers to a material that responds differently to different frequencies of radiation of radiation and may have an IR emissivity less than 1.0. Liquid water is one such material. Firstly any transparent material which absorbs UV/SW at depth and has a slow internal rate of conductive/convective energy transport will reach a far higher equilibrium (ultimate) temperature when heated by an intermittent UV/SW source that a similar material that absorbs radiation only at the surface.”

    Yes, the liquid water/ atmosphere interface with differing indices of refraction for every wavelength, and that truly nasty Snells angle. Truly, no scientific consideration was ever applied.

    # 7. “The effective IR emissivity of the oceans is far below their apparent IR emissivity.

    In treating the oceans as a “near blackbody” climastrologists have falsely claimed that the IR emissivity of water is near 1.0, with a figure of 0.95 typically being used. However this figure should only be used for setting IR instruments for measuring water in a background IR situation. Water reflects some IR, but because it is reflected not just from the surface but the first 100 microns depth, this can appear as emission. To measure the true emissivity of water you need to measure under a cryo cooled “sky”. For instance using an IR thermometer set to 0.95 you will notice an instant reading drop of around 15C for 40C water when shielded by a -40C plate, yet the actual surface temperature hasn’t changed. All that happened was most reflected IR was eliminated.”

    Again a much greater error than you imagine. Consider most surfaces, water included, have emissivities at any wavelength that drop off with increasing angles from normal, sometimes like droping from a cliff to zero. The large, but not largest, pig in the room is that concept that albedo
    is any function of total Solar entropy rejected by this planets surface. Albedo is defined as the Solar irradiance diffuslly reflected from a flat surface of the earths cross sectional area into a hemisphere convex to the Solar. None of this considers the forward reflection and scattering from the surface and atmosphere into the opposing hemisphere. This is at least an additional 24% that allows the visual observation of our Moon during an eclipse into the penumbra and even umbra.

    #8. Solar variation drives climate change by UV heating below the ocean thermocline.

    “Because climastrologists treat the oceans as a near blackbody, they claim that a 0.1% variance in TSI (total solar irradiance) cannot cause climate change. However UV frequencies can vary by as much as 25% between solar cycles. These are the frequencies that penetrate deepest into the oceans, even below the diurnal overturning layer. Evaporation provides a themostat to the upper ocean but energy that penetrates below the overturning layer can accumulate and cause changes over the long term. With a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth, UV-A variance is well strong enough to account for the 0.8C change over 150 years. CO2 need not apply.”

    Here, I lack the experience to complain, my guess is that you are still underestimating.

    For all, please consider an opposing concept, to the Climate claim, that all things with a temperature must radiate power proportional to T^4 in every direction, independent of the environment. The opposing concept is that that power transfer is strictly limited by the opposing T^4 in each direction. Now the cake in the oven transfers no power to the oven, and the oven only transfers a wee bit of power to the lower temperature cake.
    Konrad, I NEED a wee bit of help here!

  79. tchannon says:

    Is your skin burning?

    OTOH high energy radiation can penetrate and do damage without you thinking you are frying.

    As far as T^4 in all directions… maybe the effective T varies?

    PIR sensors are interesting. It thinks you are naked.

    Red laser light cannot see thermally printed barcodes at all well. Is a very thin “white” layer over black underlayer. Penetration depth varies with wavelength.

    Some IR filters are made of many layers of differing metals, another fun area.

  80. Will Janoschka says:

    tchannon says: June 12, 2014 at 3:59 am

    “Is your skin burning? OTOH high energy radiation can penetrate and do damage without you thinking you are frying.”
    Indeed!

    “As far as T^4 in all directions… maybe the effective T varies?”
    The effective is the “difference” in radiant intensity in each direction

    “PIR sensors are interesting. It thinks you are naked.”
    Another effect from Gus! Clothing tends to be at thermodynamic equilibrium. Spatial modulation rather then temporal modulation removes anything in equilibrium. What lovely tities you have!

    “Red laser light cannot see thermally printed barcodes at all well. Is a very thin “white” layer over black underlayer. Penetration depth varies with wavelength.”
    OK,, not done that.

    “Some IR filters are made of many layers of differing metals, another fun area.”
    Oh yes! Another area with vast opportunity “to really screw up”.

  81. Konrad says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    June 12, 2014 at 2:13 am
    ———————————–
    “Konrad, my minor enquiry is in all three is your minimisation of the extent of the error and intentional fraud.”

    Minimisation? I would have thought that point 17 –
    “97% of climastrologists are assclowns.” was an elegant sufficiency…;-)

    “Snells angle”

    Yea know too much…

    You would have thought that the apparent emissivity of water dropping off with angle of observation would have been a clue for the inane climastrologists. After all this is a definitive feature of materials diverging from “near blackbody”. But nooo…

    Did I say “snivelling stupidity”? I may have meant “blithering idiocy” or “out of their depth on a wet pavement” or perhaps “so far out of their depth the fish have lights on their noses”…

  82. Tim Folkerts says:

    “You came back without an IR emissivity measured without background radiation.”

    The spectrum I linked to is measured at each wavelength. In the frequencies of the atmospheric window, there is no background radiation from the atmosphere. But the emissions there are STILL close to a BB at 295K (or similar to a not-quite-BB at slightly higher temperatures).

    So the spectrum WAS measured without background radiation for those parts of the spectrum — and STILL shows high emissivity from the ocean.

  83. linneamogren says:

    Could someone help me as how the Smagorinsky momentum diffusion, phase changes, and sedimentation fluxes for hydrometeors abide to the 2nd Law of Thermo ? Also if not, why?

    Thank you so much.

  84. wayne says:

    Will Janoschka, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you engaging these topics above. Please continue, though such threads on atmospheric physics are sometimes far between (devoid now on wuwt). When the topic of the emissivity of water was mentioned, I took notice.

    One burning question I would like to hear your viewpoint:

    Take a unit area of average ocean surface, it radiates in the LW per the temperature, it evaporates per temperature and also depending here on the wind speed and relative humidity. The question… does the rate of evaporation and conduction have any effect on the rate of radiation (read: the effective or operational emissivity)? I have always held that the answer is yes, radiation is but one of a shared process to remove heat from a surface, they are not independent. That is, the rates are interdependent. If the surface is losing large amounts of energy via evaporation then the LW radiation will decrease. Some (mainly those on the opposite side) have fits when this question is raised as if this is one of their Achilles heels to their entire hypothesis on ‘global warming’ affected by co2 concentrations. (I’m leaving out a mention of phonons and near field, if possible, keeping it as simple as possible)

    Have any thoughts on this?

  85. Will Janoschka says:

    wayne says: June 12, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    “One burning question I would like to hear your viewpoint:
    Take a unit area of average ocean surface, it radiates in the LW per the temperature, it evaporates per temperature and also depending here on the wind speed and relative humidity. The question… does the rate of evaporation and conduction have any effect on the rate of radiation (read: the effective or operational emissivity)? I have always held that the answer is yes, radiation is but one of a shared process to remove heat from a surface, they are not independent.”

    I agree,they are not independent. But the dependency is weird. Wind speed can change surface emissivity of water by effecting the saturated convection boundry at the surface. Any large body if water is essentially an isotherm, meaning the rate of heat removal does not affect surface temperature, so conduction, convection, and radiation should be independent. As long as the alarmist, and lukewarmers insist that the surface radiates proportional to T^4 independent of the temperature of the surroundings there is little coupling. If however the flux from the surface is limited by any opposing irradiance, we must determine what creates that opposing irradiance. If it were that 255 Kelvin sky, then Folkerts claim, and Trenberth’s cartoon is a way of getting the same exitance near 70 W/m^2. On Trenberth’s cartoon, there is a 40W/m^2 flux straight to space, no no, this is his fantasty! Direct to space is 13 W/m^2, as the surface emissivity drops off considerably at angles far from normal.
    If the surface were black at all angles the surface would still be Lambertian, hence exit flux would be a function of cosine theta (angle from normal). This would give an effective solid angle of PI steradians, not the 2PI steradians of a hemisphere. That one PI is built in to the S-B equation and is proper for a surface with unit emissivity in all directions. A BB surface, not water, dirt, grass. Trees almost make it. For most surfaces especially water the effective solid angle is one steradian, not PI steradians. An aditional 17 W/m^2 is radiated from the surface to the 2/3 cloud cover in the atmosphere. All 30W/m^2 are radiated in the 8-13.5 micron H2O window only.
    What about the other wavelengths from 2-200 microns? All totaled less than 60 milliwatts/m^2.
    Nono, can’t be that small, cry the alarmists, The whole blaming it on CO2 would would disappear along with all that nice money.
    My calculations from my measurements. In the rest of those wavelengths using amplitude modulated (chopped) IR and only the modulation measured, 1/2 is absorbed by atmospheric water vapour within 10 meters. Using the standard lapse rate this would be a delta T of 0.068 degrees Celcius. Let’s use that to determine a flux from the whole 2-200 micron band from a BB surface at 288 Kelvin.
    The derivative form of the S-B equation is “Flux to the colder = 4 x sigma x T^3 x delta T”.
    I get 60 milliwatts/m^2, what do you get? How can that be?
    If the atmosphere can absorb it can also emit, but only to a colder temperature!!
    In addition Kerchhoff’s law of thermal emission states that through a path at thermodynamic equilibrium all radiative flux must pass through without thermalizing that path (no change in sensible heat or temperature) i.e. any incoming radiative flux from the warmer is “all ready being radiated” to the colder.
    Furthermore although no part of is “in” thermodynamic equilibrium, each is “pedaling just as fast as I can” to get there. Is this close enough?, Let the PHD’s decide they get the big bucks.
    For me, it is enough to allow that each 50% absorptive length is not just passing through 50% but adding to 100%. As the density of the atmosphere decreases the T^3 decreases the length increases as does the delta T and compensates to about 8 kilometers. All the while accumulating an ever increasing exitance to as high as 200 kilometers. The surface “needs” no emissivity, or radiative outward flux at all. The variable H2O gas in the atmosphere heated by the latent heat released when condensing can radiate more than enough to make the oceans freeze. There may be Global Warming, but the alarmists have not a clue as to how that may happen.
    I guess I didn’t answer your question but you wanted my viewpoint. I hope it helps some.

  86. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    June 12, 2014 at 2:07 pm
    ——————————–
    Tim,
    A. You didn’t include the link you refer to.
    B. The IR window is partially opaque. My IR instrument can measure 8-14 micron radiation from clear sky.
    C. You don’t have an actual measurement of the emissivity of water with background IR removed.

  87. wayne says:

    Thanks Will. Give me a moment to think through that detailed response. 🙂 I agree with so much you have laid out in your many comments above.

    On checking the figure of 60 mW (after all, simply can’t resist a calc to test some of the apps I’ve spent hours writing), I don’t find it quite as small as 60 mW but not far off, shy of a magnitude larger, in the 2-200 micron band, 390.173 less 389.821 or 352 mW per unit area at 288K using -6.5 K/km as the lapse, unit emissivity. Still a rather trivial difference and doesn’t seem to affect what you were saying.

    This difference could possibly be that my Planck integrator is quite accurate (>12 digits always) and I have made it so intentionally so where some web apps will vary from this if their integrator is not piece-wise adaptive and using something good like Boole’s method per segment. That 2-200 μm segement used 848 individual segments.

  88. Will Janoschka says:

    wayne says: June 13, 2014 at 6:51 am

    “Thanks Will. Give me a moment to think through that detailed response. I agree with so much you have laid out in your many comments above.”

    I should have mentioned that the S-B differential form should not be used above 2 Km.
    The delta T gets to large for any accuracy. At 5 Km the downward opposing irradiance is already the equivalent of 50 Kelvin so you can use the T^4 times approximate emissivity of each layer above that to accumulate outward flux. To get an idea of how fast the atmosphere can re-thermalize to equilibrium look at the profile of the air 30 cm above the sand during a total solar eclipse. http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif

  89. wayne said:

    ” radiation is but one of a shared process to remove heat from a surface,”

    I think that must be right and is implicit in my earlier comments. However I would add that it is but one of the shared processes in both removing from AND adding heat to,a surface.

    If part of the surface energy that causes the surface temperature is engaged in a conductive and convective exchange with the atmosphere then it cannot also be radiated to space at the same time.

    A portion of surface temperature supports the radiative exchange with space and a portion supports the conductive and convective exchange.

    The conductive and convective exchange nets out to zero at equilibrium but can vary inversely to the radiative capability of the atmosphere so as to maintain the stability of the radiative exchange with space.

    I tried that out on Willis at WUWT but he couldn’t see it and went off on one of his usual emotional rants on the basis that because the conductive and convective exchange normally nets out to zero it cannot have any effect on the radiative exchange or surface temperature.

    What he couldn’t grasp that the net zero conductive and convective exchange is using up surface temperature in such a way that a portion of the energy that causes that temperature becomes unavailable for radiation to space.

    Thus one simply cannot apply S-B to a surface overlain by an atmosphere that is actively engaged in the conductive and convective exchange with that surface. That applies wherever there is any atmosphere of any composition whether radiative or not.

    Furthermore the idea of an atmosphere tending to become isothermal unless radiative gases are present is simply a non starter for the reasons I set out above.

    Radiation to a rough surface rotating sphere will NEVER result in an isothermal amosphere because uneven heating will ALWAYS cause density variations in the horizontal plane which inevitably set up a convective circulation.

    Once you have a convective circulation there will ALWAYS be a lapse rate because the work done to raise molecules up against gravityy will convert KE to GPE at a rate determined by the strength of the gravitational field.

  90. wayne says:

    “If part of the surface energy that causes the surface temperature is engaged in a conductive and convective exchange with the atmosphere then it cannot also be radiated to space at the same time.”

    Stephen, I have to disagree with the way you stated that statement. Why would radiation completely stop?

    Conduction, convection and radiation all and always occur simultaneously if there is a temperature differential in a surface/atmosphere environment. Evaporation specifically (a state change) can also play into this multi-process of energy transfer. My question to Will was more like: does specifically evaporation affect these individual rate when a surface temperature is receiving enough input to maintain an exact constant temperature. Climatologists (or at least AGW proponents) seem to imply that if the water surface is 15°C then the radiation from that surface is always constant no matter of the other three processes (conduction, convection and evaporation). That still leaves me with the same question. If so why? If not, why are they not allowing for this decrease in radiation due to evaporation averaged globally and the average winds that facilitate this evaporation. I would read that as affecting the effective emissivity.

  91. tchannon says:

    “seem to imply that if the water surface is 15°C then the radiation from that surface is always constant no matter of the other three processes (conduction, convection and evaporation). ”

    Same energy packet can’t, context splitting going on.

    Top down view troubles instead of bottom up nuts and bolts.
    Does the scene pass Fisher’s type 3 test? No since there are identifiable subsets. In addition there is multi-way interaction, mobile fluids are involved.

    Can radiation pass unimpeded through water vapour? A surface is creating new vapour.

  92. wayne.

    Radiation doesn’t stop.

    Only that part of the surface energy diverted to fuelling conduction and convection is no longer available to radiate out.

    The same packet of energy cannot be in two places at once.

    The thing is that conduction and convection always account for the difference between total energy at the surface and the energy permitted to radiate out to space.

    If you change the radiative capabilities of the atmospheric gases then conduction and convection change for an equal and opposite thermal effect.

    The simplest description is as follows:

    i) More GHGs send more radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

    ii) That energy leakage to space weakens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns less GPE to the surface as KE and the surface cools.

    iii) DWIR from the extra GHGs compensates for the weakening of convective overturning and leaves surface temperature as before.

    Or, in reverse:

    i) Less GHGs send less radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

    ii) That reduced energy leakage to space strengthens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns more GPE to the surface as KE and the surface warms.

    iii) Reduced DWIR from less GHGs compensates for the strengthening of convective overturning and leaves the surface temperature as before.

    AGW theory misses out the non radiative thermal effect of the descent phase of convective overturning and thus breaches the Laws of Conservation of Energy.

  93. tchannon says: June 13, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    “Can radiation pass unimpeded through water vapour? A surface is creating new vapour.”

    Thank you Tim, A much better answer than my, “winds affect the convective boundry layer.”
    You hit the head on the nail, It is an transmissivity change rather than an emissivity change.

    wayne says: June 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm
    ” If not, why are they not allowing for this decrease in radiation due to evaporation averaged globally and the average winds that facilitate this evaporation. I would read that as affecting the effective emissivity”.
    Please try to define what you mean with the word “effective” with each use.
    In radiant energy transfer, there are many terms that can be deliberately used to confuse rather than to inform. If I remember correctly:
    “per unit area”. depends on meaning local, projected, or both.
    ” per steradian”. A well defined geometric property that is ” to hard” to understand! It must be disappeared whenever encountered.
    ” surface property emissivity has the same numerical value as surface property absorptivity, at each frequency, and in each direction KLR”. The two only distinguish opposite directions, with the same value, still a surface property, nothing else. Alarmists, we can aggregate over any frequency band, or any numer of directions, to claim scientific proof of whatever.
    “then the big three, (or four), emissivity, reflectivity, transmissivity.” In radiometric terms, all fractions must sum to one, at each frequency, and in each direction. An interesting situation, if any one (like emissivity) approach 1.0, both others must approach zero independent of each other.
    However if any one (like atmospheric reflectivity) approach zero, the summation of the other two must approach 1.0. Each of the remaning two is entirely is entirely dependent, on the other, at each frequency, and in each direction. The only known example of each being 1/3 is the Earths atmosphere, with clouds, in the visible spectrum! How dey do dat? What a wonderful planet!

  94. “Can radiation pass unimpeded through water vapour? A surface is creating new vapour.”

    Can radiation pass unimpeded through the mass of an atmosphere ?

    A surface is constantly creating gravitational potential energy from KE via conduction and convection even where an atmosphere has no radiative capability.

    Water on the surface adds the abilityof the surface to create latent heat of evaporation (another form of potential energy) from KE.

    Once surface KE is removed fo create any form of potential energy then that KE is no longer available for radiation in any direction.

    The S-B equation simply does not apply for any surface overlain by an atmosphere.

    The surface temperature will always become higher than the S-B prediction without destabilising the radiative balance with space regardless of the presence or absence of radiative capability within the atmosphere.

  95. konrad. says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 13, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    ————————————–
    “The S-B equation simply does not apply for any surface overlain by an atmosphere”

    I prefer to say that standard S-B equations should never be applied to a moving gas atmosphere over a transparent liquid ocean. Sir George Simpson of the Royal Meteorological Society clearly understood these issues way back in 1938, as evidenced by his reply to Callendar’s paper –

    “..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”

  96. Konrad, good find but I think Callendar’s comment refers to solid as well as water surfaces. I’m glad to see that he refers to up and down movement which I have been going on about at some length.

    Trick and Tim seem to have gone quiet with no counterpoints to more recent comments.

  97. Trick says:

    Stephen 7:23am: “Trick and Tim seem to have gone quiet…”

    Too busy on other sports for target practice here. Yes, agree Callendar 1938 atm. meteorological physics apply to L&O surfaces and are beyond Konrad’s ability to fault so 2:27am applies argument from authority of G. Simpson.

    The simple test I posted 5/31 6:13am to relieve basic GREAS still stands in face of many comments here: 1) the S-B equation is thereby demonstrated to apply for a surface overlain by an atmosphere, 2) proves that DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans, and 3) proves the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is surface warming.

    Varying optical depth of a planetary atmosphere does have an influence on L&O surface temperature.

    Will needs to read up on history; the 1888 experimental proof of bidirectional EMF still stands today as an interesting accomplishment of science.

    ******
    The top post issue remains with the climate model implementation of “simulating conventional turbulent heat flow” not with the basic radiative/conductive/convective principled experimental physics.

  98. konrad. says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 16, 2014 at 7:23 am
    ——————————-
    Stephen,
    Tricks comment –

    “Yes, agree Callendar 1938 atm. meteorological physics apply to L&O surfaces and are beyond Konrad’s ability to fault”

    – is more than a little disingenuous, as the text I quoted was actually Sir George Simpson’s criticism of Callendars 1938 paper which attempted to “calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere”

  99. konrad. says:

    Trick says:
    June 16, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    ————————————–
    “The simple test I posted 5/31 6:13am to relieve basic GREAS still stands in face of many comments here: 1) the S-B equation is thereby demonstrated to apply for a surface overlain by an atmosphere, 2) proves that DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans, and 3) proves the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is surface warming.”

    What you posted was an irrelevant experiment insulating the outside of glass flasks –

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/climate-models-violate-the-basic-physics-of-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-79237

    Any claim that such an experiment covers the effect of incident LWIR on the surface liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool would be [mod: snip [untrue]]. Any claim that such an experiment shows the atmosphere having a net warming effect on the oceans would also be [mod: snip [untrue]].

    Are you all out of new Pinata Weasels Trick? Do you have nothing left?

  100. tchannon says:

    I’m puzzled too over the Callendar comments. He was a pest. I nearly commented, if I had maybe the mistake would not have been made.

    Archives at UEA and locked from outside access but CRU have looked. Leads to me wondering what is in there.

    Anyway, Simpson

    “Less prone to crank enthusiasm and scientific scorn, if equally speculative, was the possibility that the Sun could affect climate on much longer timescales. During the 1920s, a few people developed simple models that suggested that even a modest change in solar radiation might set off an ice age, by initiating self-sustaining changes in the polar ice. A leading British meteorologist, Sir George Simpson, believed the sequence of ice ages showed that the Sun is a variable star, changing its brightness over a cycle some 100,000 years long.(13) “There has always been a reluctance among scientists to call upon changes in solar radiation… to account for climatic changes,” Simpson told the Royal Meteorological Society in a Presidential address of 1939. “The Sun is so mighty and the radiation emitted so immense that relatively short period changes… have been almost unthinkable.” But none of the terrestrial causes proposed for ice ages was at all convincing, he said, and that “forced a reconsideration of extra-terrestrial causes.”(14)”

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm#N_1_

    We now know about orbital changes but not whether the sun changes as well.