Tim Folkerts and Will Janoschka: Two toy planet thought experiments

Posted: July 10, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Ocean dynamics, radiative theory, weather, wind

Greenhouse effectsFollowing on from our recent debate on the likely extent of the greenhouse effect on Earth, this post will broaden the scope of discussion by allowing consideration of planetary surface temperatures on imaginary worlds. Tim Folkerts proposes a world at the distance from the Sun of our moon (i.e. the same average distance as Earth), with a twist on surface composition:

Konrad,

Just out of curiosity, if I put a ball of water — say a few km in diameter — in some sort of clear plastic baggie to keep it together and prevent evaporation in orbit around the sun @ 1 AU, are you claiming the water inside the baggie will be at least 80 C everywhere?

Or if I put a series of such plastic baggies on the moon to cover the entire surface with water 1 km deep that cannot evaporate, that the surface of the moon would be at or above 80 C everywhere (lets even limit the question to the “tropics” out to ~ 30 degrees N & S to avoid question about what happens at the poles)?

(We could even make the baggie slightly elastic to apply 1 Atm of pressure inward on the ball of water).

____________________________

Tim appears to have misunderstood what Konrad and I are telling him about the atmosphere being a cooling agent rather than a warming agent, and how pressure acts to slow the loss of energy from the oceans via the atmospheric suppression of evaporation and the increased density of a near surface atmosphere, which is not present on his toy planet.

Will Janoschka offers an Earth like but initially co2 free toy planet for consideration:

tallbloke says: July 9, 2014 at 6:23 pm

“Tim F: I’ll set you up a thought experiments thread to discuss it.”

Good Idea! For real thinking I suggest:

A one millionth (by mass) atmosphere with mass of 6 Zg, and by volume:
70% N2, 28% O2, and 2% H2O. Inside that, at density of 3 g/cm^3
a 70% water covered sphere, the other 30% mostly all plant growth.
With a point radiative electromagnetic source giving a irradiance of 1200 W/m2.
and color temperature 5700 Kelvin. All other directions having an effective BB temperature of 6.8 Kelvin.
Let the sphere have a uniform emissivity of 66% at all wavelengths, and rotate one revolution per day, while the point source oscilates from normal to spin axis, by a maximum of 23.5 degrees at one complete cycle per year.

Have Tim with his excellent knowledge of thermodynamics, produce maximum, minimum, and average surface temperature, along with the temperature profile for the whole atmosphere to an altitude of 200 km. Show all work!
Add 400 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere and recalculate!
Is not this what the CAGW have claimed they have done the past 30 years and have not yet got it correct!

____________________________

After this thread we’ll go back to some sage words from the Scottish Sceptic who kicked off the previous debate, in order to help us plan the reformulation of an alternative hypothesis to the current climate paradigm whose theoretical modelling output is rapidly diverging from reality.  But for now, sharpen your calculators and get some new batteries for your pencils, this will be fun!

Comments
  1. Konrad. says:

    What Tim proposed with water is exactly what this experiment design from January all about –

    What is being shown is a de-gased water sample being exposed to intermittent SW radiation. The matt black cryo-cooled plate at the top minimises any LWIR reaching the surface of the sample. The LDPE film is IR transparent and prevents evaporative cooling. The dry nitrogen blanket between the LDPE film and the cryo-cooled plate is also IR transparent and is temperature controlled at the inflow point to surface water temp to minimise any conductive cooling.

    So what’s the point of building something like this? Well according to the calculations used by climastrologists, if SW is made equal to surface incident solar radiation, that water should freeze solid and its temperature should drop to an average -18C.

    But due to the selective surface effect, that will not happen.

    The only way to get the water close to freezing with an average of 240 w/m2 of absorbed SW would be to make the sample very, very thin. This would minimise the selective surface effect and allow the water to act closer to a “near blackbody”.

    However the deeper the sample gets, the hotter it will get. In the real oceans, SW penetrates to ~200m.

    Experiments of this type also tell us something about the model Will proposes ie: it can’t work. Just using an emissivity figure, even as low as 0.66 for water, cannot possibly give the right answer. With semi-transparent selective surfaces, depth of energy absorption, speed of internal non-radiative transport and specific heat capacity are all critical factors. Evaporative cooling further compounds the problem.

    For something as simple as this –


    Gallopingcamel’s FEA model used for his lunar surface calcs would probably work.

    But add convection and evaporation –


    and you would need FEA and CFD.

  2. Konrad. says:

    My direct answer to Tim’s question –
    “Just out of curiosity, if I put a ball of water — say a few km in diameter — in some sort of clear plastic baggie to keep it together and prevent evaporation in orbit around the sun @ 1 AU, are you claiming the water inside the baggie will be at least 80 C everywhere?”

    My answer is that it would superheat and explode. The final temperature and the force of the explosion would depend on the strength of the plastic bag.

    Here’s why. While a few km diameter is enough for full SW absorption, it is not enough to create significant gravity. Without much gravity internal convection would be suppressed. The water being heated would not be able to get to the “surface” to radiate and it could heat to truly incredible temperatures.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: “Experiments of this type also tell us something about the model Will proposes ie: it can’t work”

    Will’s model? Or Tim’s model?

  4. Konrad. says:

    Well, Will’s proposed model could work if fluid dynamics of both the ocean and atmosphere were modelled and emissivity of water was made to vary with wave height and temperature.

    But given that current GCMs cannot even model vertical circulation in the atmosphere for a full global run, this would be a very tall order. 😉

  5. Eric Barnes says:

    A comet would be a somewhat similar condition to the thought experiment.. I’m guessing the tail is visible before being 1 au out. There must be some very good observational data on this?

  6. Konrad says:

    Eric,
    That is a good example. The “snow line” in the solar system is way out at 3AU.
    Ice will begin to subliminate into vacuum at temperatures above -20C. Yet comets can begin to create a tail before they reach a point close enough to the sun for a blackbody to be at -20C.

    But as comets are dirty ice, a better example is the ice exposed by the Phoenix lander on Mars. The highest temperature spike recorded at the landing site was -18C. Yet the weak sun on Mars was enough to boil the ice away.

  7. Eric Barnes says:

    “But as comets are dirty ice, a better example is the ice exposed by the Phoenix lander on Mars. The highest temperature spike recorded at the landing site was -18C. Yet the weak sun on Mars was enough to boil the ice away.”

    I’m sure Tim will blame the high concentration of CO2 on Mars for that. 😉

  8. tallbloke says:

    Low atmospheric pressure means sublimation at lower temperatures.

  9. tallbloke says: July 10, 2014 at 7:40 am

    Konrad: “Experiments of this type also tell us something about the model Will proposes ie: it can’t work”

    “Will’s model? Or Tim’s model?”

    Roger, I was trying a simplified model of “this toy planet” with no orbital rotational momuntum from the Earth, Sun, other system planets, or the milky way galaxy! Also no variance in electromagnetic flux from the Sun. These folk can now model only the earth and its atmosphere, nothing else, They can have the deep oceans slosh however. The atmosphere can do whatever, only need be described in scientific terms. They can have no answers about the temperatures. They do not know! If I messed up any numbers, of this toy planet, they are easly corrected and agreed upon. Joanne and David are well into what that messy Sun does.

    This is the deliberate scientific FRAUD that has been delivered for 30 years, only for monetary and political gain! Every document from NASA GISS since Hansen is fradulent. Every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, and section was intended to deceive. Even the punctuation is suspect!

  10. tallbloke says:

    Will: Some of the datasets are pretty dodgy too. But I think they genuinely believe their own bullshit about the greenhouse effect. I think it has a non-negligible (in terms of correct and complete scientific description) role in the maintenance of surface temperature (mostly from water vapour). That said, I see Lindzen’s estimate of 0.4C for a doubling of co2 as an upper limit rather than a lower one, so the enhanced greenhouse effect is pretty negligible in terms of pressing human affairs.

  11. Konrad. says: July 10, 2014 at 8:01 am

    Well, Will’s proposed model could work if fluid dynamics of both the ocean and atmosphere were modelled and emissivity of water was made to vary with wave height and temperature.

    Konrad: Emissivity is a property of a surface and does not change with wave height and temperature. Emittance (flux emitted) varies greatly with wave height, temperature, and wind velocity, from any liquid surface. This is why emissivity (a surface property) is so damn hard to measure especially of a liquid surface with waves and white caps.

  12. tallbloke says: July 10, 2014 at 11:48 am

    “Will: Some of the datasets are pretty dodgy too. But I think they genuinely believe their own bullshit about the greenhouse effect. I think it has a non-negligible (in terms of correct and complete scientific description) role in the maintenance of surface temperature (mostly from water vapour). That said, I see Lindzen’s estimate of 0.4C for a doubling of co2 as an upper limit rather than a lower one, so the enhanced greenhouse effect is pretty negligible in terms of pressing human affairs.”

    Roger,
    I also think we will never get a conviction, Even for frivolous AlGorithms.
    It would be nice if some lukewarmers like Tim F., admit [snip] they are so far out of league with either side!

    [Reply] Will, we are winning this without the need to give the other side an ‘ad hominem!’ escape clause.

  13. Konrad says:

    Will, my main point was that for transparent materials of any significant depth, emissivity alone will not tell you their thermal respose to SW radiation.

    Wave height does not change the emissivity of water molecules, but it can change the effective emissivity of the ocean surface.

    Many materials do slightly alter emissivity with temperature, although this is not a big factor. The most accurate emissivity tables for materials include a temperature for which the setting is valid.

    The bottom line is that what climastrologist did using a figure of 0.96 and standard S-B equations on the oceans was beyond foolish. It was inane. I suspect a lot of them will be using the phrase “would you like fries with that? ” in their next jobs…

  14. Konrad says:
    July 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    “Will, my main point was that for transparent materials of any significant depth, emissivity alone will not tell you their thermal respose to SW radiation. ”

    Indeed, transmissivity+absorbtivity+reflectivity always equal one, at each wavelength, and in each direction! Kirchhoff! Trust the measurements of no other than yourself.! Will J.
    Konrad, Please check my numbers for all, regarding “this” toy planet!

  15. Trick says:

    tallbloke top post: “Tim appears to have misunderstood what Konrad and I are telling him about the atmosphere being a cooling agent rather than a warming agent…”

    Be specific, under certain lab test conditions & in situ conditions the atm. decreases ocean surface temperature & under certain conditions atm. increases ocean surface temperature. Tair-Twater and SAT-SST can be plus or minus where SAT=surface air temperature, SST = sea surface temperature as measured, as defined by measuring device. See Table 1 in 1st link, figure 5 in 2nd link.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024769/full
    http://www.academia.edu/5322744/Relationship_between_sea_surface_temperature_and_surface_air_temperature_over_Arabian_Sea_Bay_of_Bengal_and_Indian_Ocean

    Thick atm.s are not a surface cooling agent by actual measurements. See Fig. 1 for all of the worlds in the Solar System with thick atm.s. Every world shows from measurements the thick atm. to be a surface warming agent when p( z) above about 0.1 bar. For earth, satellites measure 255K and surface thermometer field measures 288K. For Venus, satellites measure 232K, limited surface thermometers about 732K.

    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    “At higher pressures (than ~0.1 bar) , atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue….Remote sensing and in situ measurements have shown that tropopauses all occur around 0.1 bar on planets in the Solar system with thick atmospheres and stratospheric inversions (Fig. 1)….become essentially transparent to thermal IR radiation.”

    ******

    Konrad 7:12am: “…according to the calculations used by climastrologists, if SW is made equal to surface incident solar radiation, that water should freeze solid and its temperature should drop to an average -18C.”

    No. Tried many times to break the news gently to Konrad, there is no sheet of LDPE covering the Earth’s oceans, they are free to evaporatively cool under any condition. Konrad has modeled the lower volume of a solar pond. The oceans are a gray body as well as selective surface. In his colored water experiment, though informed, Konrad does not account for the scattering of the black dye particles.

    Konrad refuses to write out his calculations and show us where they differ from texts. Konrad refuses to provide any basic calculations at all. Actually when text authors write out the basic 1st law for Earth system surface balance from measured data, 1st law result shows what Earth shows ~288K surface Tmean. If accurately write 1st law following Konrad’s experiments, it will reasonably show what Konrad’s experimental thermometers show. The 1st law is generally accepted; Konrad’s prose explanations of his experiments are not generally accepted.

    Here are the steps for your SI Konrad – apply when you get around to writing up & publishing your experiments: adapt, improvise, overcome:

    1) Draw a control volume around the body of interest (here the water)
    2) Account for all energy crossing the control volume; natural movement of energy IN the control volume will not change its Tmean
    3) Apply basic 1st law to control volume: energy in – energy out = m*Cp*dTmean/dt for which at equilibrium dTmean/dt = 0; m,Cp for the water

    *****

    Will 1:20pm: “Indeed, transmissivity+absorbtivity+reflectivity always equal one, at each wavelength, and in each direction!”

    No, not always since if natural diffraction process is included total can be greater than 1. Yes, if tested under the restrictions applied in Planck’s original paper. In his exact words:

    “We are therefore obliged to introduce right at the start a certain restriction with respect to the size of the parts of space to be considered. Throughout the following discussion it will be assumed that the linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wave lengths of the rays considered. With this assumption we may, without appreciable error, entirely neglect the influence of diffraction.”

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

    Have fun getting the basic science right guys. Just like climate modelers are having fun getting their results right.

  16. Tim Folkerts says:

    I fear this thread will not prove especially productive, but I will start with three general comments.

    1) It is wrong to ask if the atmosphere is a warming or a cooling agent — it is BOTH. The evaporative interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a cooling effect (~ 80 W/m^2), The conductive/convective interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a cooling effect (~ 20 W/m^2), The radiative interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a warming effect (~ 300 W/m^2), I have no problem with claims that the atmosphere has some cooling effects; hopefully others will recognize it has warming effects, too.

    2) Just because a model is not EXACTLY right does not make it COMPLETELY wrong. GHG’s provides a warming effect for the surface. There is really no way to debate this. The debate is over how much warming — and more directly, how the feedbacks increase/decrease the GHG warming. Clearly the models have overestimated the warming for the last ~ 15 years, but that does not mean that every feature is wrong. It also means that any model we invent here will be oversimplified and cannot hope to reproduce all the features of the real earth. All we could hope for is to understand the general nature of various factors — GHGs, lapse rate, evaporation, etc.

    3) Whatever other features are built into a model, it must conserve energy. Konrad’s 80 C ocean surface temperature simply does NOT conserve energy — getting only 240 W/m^2 into the ocean surface, but radiating way more to space. The only solutions I can think of to conserve energy would be
    a) oceans with an emissivity of ~ 0.3 (which even Conrad does not advocate)
    b) some ‘hidden’ source of energy for the ocean that no one knows about
    c) massive back-radiation from the atmosphere — even more than the current ~ 300 W/m^2.

  17. Tim Folkerts says:

    One more general comment.

    As a physicist, I tend to start with the proverbial “spherical cow” approximation. Start with things we can easily measure and/or calculate (even if it is a lousy approximation of the ultimate solution we seek) and make sure we agree there. THEN move on to progressively more complicated systems where the answers become progressively more challenging.

    Heck, even something as simple as uniform illumination, a black surface, no atmosphere, and a single glass layer (passes sunlight; blocks thermal IR) above the planet is already more than many can handle. If we can’t even agree on that, there is no point is jumping straight to something like Will’s proposal above, where a dozen other factors come into play.

    That was the purpose of my “baggie of water” proposal. A single type of surface. Evaporation is constrained. The “atmospheric pressure” can be simulated by the elastic properties of the “baggie” pressing in on the water. No GHGs above the water surface.

  18. Tim Folkerts says:

    PS for the “baggie of water world”, the average incoming power is 1370/4 = 342 W/m^2 (assuming it is all absorbed, so the average power going out will also be 342 W/m^2 at steady-state. For a few select emissivities, this would produce temperatures of

    ε T
    1 279
    0.95 282
    0.67 308

    So with full sunlight, the baggie world could reach average surface temperatures of ~ 282 K (if ε = 0.95) or ~ 308 K (if ε = 0.67). That would be pretty comfortable.

    To be more like earth, we should reduce the absorbed power to 240 W/m^2. Then we get average surface temperatures of ~ 258 K (if ε = 0.95) or ~ 283 K (if ε = 0.67). Clearly it is critical to know the correct emissivity of water — one estimate leads to a frozen iceball; the other leads to earth-like temperatures.

    In any case, a surface temperature of 80 C (353 K) requires an emissivity of ~ 0.27, which no one is claiming!

  19. Arfur Bryant says:

    All,

    We don’t need thought experiments. We have planet Earth. We have enough data – even if some disagree with all the data – to tell us reasonable answers to the big questions.

    So, here is a direct question to Tim F:

    Back in 1850, before the ‘anthropogenic effect’ officially started, the posited GHE was 32.2 deg C. (Because the current enhanced GHE is apparently 33 deg C). The concentration of CO2 was 280ppm.

    Question: What was the contribution made by CO2 to the GHE in 1850?

    Please give your answer either in deg C or as a percentage of the posited GHE.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: The radiative interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a warming effect (~ 300 W/m^2)

    So I put my bowl of tomato soup out on the patio last night and was disappointed to find the 300W/m^2 downwelling longwave wasn’t enough to heat it in 8 hours overnight, whereas my microwave oven does the job in 3 mins. What am I doing wrong?

    The answer is I need to subtract the amount of longwave the soup is emitting and get a net figure before I’ll get a sensible answer. Turns out it must have been emitting more than was downwelling, because it got colder instead of warmer.

    Similarly, the ocean is on the global average (take note Trick), around 2C warmer than the air. How then is the downwelling longwave from a cooler environment going to heat an ocean which is in any case opaque to it?

  21. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: The “atmospheric pressure” can be simulated by the elastic properties of the “baggie” pressing in on the water.

    Two ways pressure reduces the cooling of ability of the ocean on Earth:

    1) It increases atmospheric density making the near surface air a better insulator
    2) It suppresses evaporation.

    Do either of these effects apply to Tim F’s hypothetical waterbag world which has no atmosphere and in which the baggie contained water cant evaporate?

    No.

    Has he disproved in any way what we’ve spent the last week telling him?

    No.

  22. Tim Folkerts says:

    Arfur, you misunderstand me (as does Will with his model in the top post). At this level of discussion and analysis, all I am hoping to show general principles — to get the discussion in the right ballpark. Things like …

    * GHGs provide a warming effect at the surface
    * the lapse rate is a critical part of the GHE
    * albedo and emissivity of the surface matter

    When there are people who believe things like the GHE violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, there is no point in discussing the MAGNITUDE of the effect until we can establish the EXISTENCE of the effect.

    PS there are many estimates of the actual contribution of CO2 online — you are welcome to look them up and critique their choices. But that is an entirely different discussion.

  23. Tim Folkerts says:

    “So I put my bowl of tomato soup out on the patio last night and was disappointed to find the 300W/m^2 downwelling longwave wasn’t enough to heat it in 8 hours overnight, whereas my microwave oven does the job in 3 mins. What am I doing wrong?”

    Great– a pair of simple thought experiments with simple physics answers. I couldn’t ask for a better scenario.

    Temperature change is about NET energy flow. The room temperate soup is receiving ~ 300 W/m^2 of DWLWIR from the surrounding room temperature walls and ceiling. The room temperature soup is also emitting ~ 300 W/m^2 UWLWIR from its own surface. Or as some people might prefer — there is no exchange with surroundings at the same temperate. In either case, the NET flow is zero, and the temperature does not change, no matter how long you wait.

    Now, if IN ADDITION to the 300 W/m^2 of DWLWIR arriving (from the room temperature walls of the microwave oven) and 300 W/m^2 of UWLWIR leaving, we ADD IN 800 W/m^2 of concentrated microwaves, the NET flow is 800 W/m^2 into the soup, and the soup warms.

  24. Tim Folkerts says:

    Hmm … looks like I should have read a little further and more carefully … Tallbloke provides about the same answer.

    But he then goes on to discuss the ocean:
    “How then is the downwelling longwave from a cooler environment going to heat an ocean which is in any case opaque to it?”

    The answer is basically the same. A warm bowl of soup surrounded by a cooler microwave can still warm when the microwaves are turned on. And the warm ocean surrounded by a cooler atmosphere can still still warm when the sun is turned on.

    The other point that needs to be made is that if the walls of the microwave were very cold (say 2.7 K), there would be less DWLWIR, and the soup would cool much faster when the microwave was off and would warm more slowly when the microwave was turned on. (this would be true, even with a room temperature bubble of air around the bowl of soup). Similarly, the oceans would cool much faster and night and warm much slower during the day of there were no DWLWIR from the atmosphere.

    This is conservation of energy. DWLWIR helps keep the earth warm. And it turns out this effect is MUCH larger than convection or evaporation, so the net effect of the atmosphere is WARMING not COOLING.

  25. tallbloke says:

    No Tim. The net effect is to slow the cooling, not warming.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: “Temperature change is about NET energy flow. The room temperate soup is receiving ~ 300 W/m^2 of DWLWIR from the surrounding room temperature walls and ceiling. The room temperature soup is also emitting ~ 300 W/m^2 UWLWIR from its own surface. Or as some people might prefer — there is no exchange with surroundings at the same temperate. In either case, the NET flow is zero, and the temperature does not change, no matter how long you wait.”

    So where does this leave your original claim that the ocean is receiving 300W/m^2 of warming from dwir?

    “The radiative interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a warming effect (~ 300 W/m^2)”

  27. Tim Folkerts says:

    Tallbloke, when you say “No Tim. The net effect is to slow the cooling, not warming.” this is just semantics. No matter how you say that, the ocean is warmer because there is an atmosphere providing DWLWIR. Remove the atmosphere and the ocean will be cooler.

    Do you (or anyone else) disagree with any of the following? On earth under current conditions (rounding off considerably):
    * evaporation “speeds up cooling” of the surface by about about 80 W/m^2
    * conduction/convection “speeds up cooling” of the surface by about 20 W/m^2
    * DWLWIR “slows down cooling” of the surface by about 300 W/m^2
    * the net effect is to “slow down cooling” of the surface by about 200 W/m^2

    I have no problem saying “the insulation around my house helps warm it during the winter” — where the context clearly includes a furnace that is actually heating the house and the insulation simply “assists” . I can see how “the insulation around my house slows the cooling during the winter” might be marginally better. Although if I raised the thermostat from 15 C to 25 C, then the insulation is not “slowing the cooling” but “aiding the warming” since there is no “cooling” going on in the house.

    I suppose we could go back to something more technical like “increases/decreases heat flow from the surface”. So …
    * evaporation results in about about 80 W/m^2 more heat flow away from the surface with an atmosphere than without. (80 vs 0)
    * conduction/convection results about 20 W/m^2 more heat flow away from the surface with an atmosphere than without. (20 vs 0)
    * DWLWIR results in about 300 W/m^2 LESS heat flow away from the surface with an atmosphere than without. (60 vs 360)

    “So where does this leave your original claim that the ocean is receiving 300W/m^2 of warming from dwir?”
    It leaves this as a semantic issue. If you want to say “the ocean is warmer because of the presence of the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is not warming the ocean” — well that is one way to state the results in English. It is perfectly legitimate, but it certainly not the only way to say it.

    But however you say it, the net effect is a warmer ocean because of the atmosphere around the earth. Anyone who disagrees — please state which particular numbers you disagree with.

  28. Tim Folkerts says:

    mkelly says: July 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm …

    That is indeed a fascinating picture. However it is in perfect agreement with physics — including “back-radiation” and “the greenhouse effect”. The writer simply doesn’t realize it! 🙂

    [Reply] But the diffuse DWLIR is hitting the frost from above the sunlit ground as well Tim. Where’s the awesome energy? 🙂

  29. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: * DWLWIR “slows down cooling” of the surface by about 300 W/m^2

    OK, you now agree it’s slowing down cooling we are discussing, good. But once again you need to consider the net value. Down minus up.

    But then this:
    “I have no problem saying “the insulation around my house helps warm it during the winter” — where the context clearly includes a furnace that is actually heating the house and the insulation simply “assists””

    No, no and a thousand times no. You are supposed to be a physicist for crying out gently! The insulation doesn’t warm anything, it has no energy source of its own. The furnace heats the house, the insulation slows it’s rate of cooling. End of.

    But however you say it, the net effect is a warmer ocean because of the atmosphere around the earth.

    We’ve found this is due to pressure limiting evaporation rate and increasing surface air density much more than it’s due to the net DWLIR. So yes the presence of the atmosphere helps, but it’s atmospheric mass that counts more than composition, so long as there’s enough condensible gas to radiate heat to space from altitude. Co2 is along for the ride.

  30. Trick says:

    tallbloke 5:26pm: “Similarly, the ocean is on the global average (take note Trick), around 2C warmer than the air.”

    Source?

    I did take note from the paper Ben Wouters posted up in the previous thread; I suggest to all interested in ocean/air interface read the summary Section 8. At very least to learn more complicated than tb implies. tallbloke’s noted 2C seems to be roughly in agreement with this paper indicating the difference disappears by day break and in early studies ocean is elevated to 0.2-0.6K above air diurnally reaching 1.5K difference clear and calm. Recent studies put it up to 5K difference in extreme cases. Realize however the paradox noted by Zhang 2005 in 5th clip.

    http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf

    My notes:

    Sverdrup et al. (1942) suggested the importance of the diurnal SST variability on air-sea (energy) exchange. An error of 1 K in SSTskin can lead to an error of 27 W/m^2 in net surface (energy) flux in the tropical western Pacific (Webster et al.,1996).

    Cornillon and Stramma (1985) showed an example in the north Atlantic where monthly mean SST was higher by about 0.2 K in the case that diurnal SST variations were included than in the case that they were ignored. This difference reduces the net (energy) flux of 5 W/m^2 entering the ocean.

    Fairall et al. (1996) and Ward (2006) indicated that the net (energy) flux from the ocean can increase 50–60 W/m^2 in the daytime under calm and clear conditions due to the effect of the warm layer (Fig. 3).

    The atmosphere senses only the exact interface between the atmosphere and the ocean. Hence we have to know SSTint (or SSTskin practically) and its diurnal variation for accurate estimation of air-sea (energy) and gas fluxes (e.g., Sarmiento and Sundquist, 1992; Fairall et al., 1996).

    Zhang (2005) pointed out that “the atmosphere does not see SST; it only senses it through surface fluxes.” From this viewpoint, paradoxically, the atmosphere near the surface may sense that the sea surface is cool in calm and clear conditions. (Due to SSTskin ~ SSTinterface cool layer)

    A sharp temperature gradient sometimes appears above 1-m depth in the daytime..the diurnal thermocline vanishes by sunrise next morning.

    Ward (2006) also showed temperature stratification of up to 2.7 K formed above 1-m depth….the diurnal thermocline almost disappears when wind speed exceeds about 5 m/sec. (See Fig. 8.)

    The surface latent and sensible (enthalpy) fluxes showed clear diurnal variability, and the average diurnal amplitudes of the latent and sensible (enthalpy) fluxes were 19.7 and 5.6 W/m^2 respectively.

    ….implied that the effect of the warm layer may be less important for the air-sea CO2 exchange than the skin effect, because while the warm layer forms only in the daytime of a calm and clear day, the skin layer exists even in windy conditions (Donlon et al., 2002).

  31. Trick says:

    Tim F. 6:55pm: “…so the net effect of the atmosphere is WARMING not COOLING.”

    tallbloke 7:05pm: “No Tim. The net effect is to slow the cooling, not warming.”

    I agree semantic games. Round and round we et. al. go playing those games, I am guilty too but try physics – is better. Fig. 1 in Robinson & Catling 2013 shows the observations; the measurements for all the worlds with thick atm.s in the Solar System. More properly stated to eliminate sematics best I can & shown by reasoned analysis math in their CI:

    The thick atm.s optical depth enable the sun to warm the surface Tmean above what satellites measure in each and every case.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Trick: The thick atm.s optical depth enable the sun to warm the surface Tmean above what satellites measure

    So you keep saying. But heavy atmosphere’s raising surface pressure increase surface T-mean in every case too. So how to decide which is the effective factor? Easy, look at net radiation, which shows negligible energy is being exchanged by LWIR near the surface.

  33. Trick says:

    tallbloke 8:47pm: Ok, thx. Looks like you are writing about the spatial and temporal avg.d observations from HADISST (green) and MOHMAT (blue) which show about a Mark 1 eyeball 2.5C difference over the measurement period. Now I gotta’ follow the pea thru those datasets, I’m not familiar with them.

  34. Trick says:

    tallbloke 9:15pm: “But heavy atmosphere’s raising surface pressure increase surface T-mean in every case too. So how to decide which is the effective factor? “

    Answer is hairy, you have to run the optical depth calculations (function of pressure or density, specie absorption coefficient and specie mass mixing ratio) for each ith component of the atm. and sum. I would write it here but latex is not in my skill set. See Robinson & Catling 2013 SI formula S14 in density terms and S16 in pressure terms. Then S19. Then read some simplifications provided for understanding. They have done some simplifying work for you & explain p.10.

    For earth, running the numbers will show you water vapor is the primary opacity source, but not for gas giants (H2) (and Venus CO2) where pressure collision-induced is the primary opacity source.

  35. mkelly says:

    Tim Folkerts says:

    July 10, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    mkelly says: July 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm …

    That is indeed a fascinating picture. However it is in perfect agreement with physics — including “back-radiation” and “the greenhouse effect”. The writer simply doesn’t realize it! 🙂

    ======

    Can’t melt frost but can warm the oceans. That is some strange capabilities.

    It maybe in perfect agreement with physics but not with the AGW makes the surface hotter claim.

  36. mkelly says:

    Forgot to add it has to been in perfect agreement with physics Tim it is doing it.

  37. tallbloke says:

    Trick: Tim F. 6:55pm: “…so the net effect of the atmosphere is WARMING not COOLING.”

    tallbloke 7:05pm: “No Tim. The net effect is to slow the cooling, not warming.”

    I agree semantic games. Round and round we et. al. go playing those games

    It’s an important distinction. we are trying to get you both to realise that the primary energy flow is
    Sun > Oceans > atmosphere > space.

    Which is why temperatures get lower all the way from the sea surface to the stratosphere.

  38. Tim Folkerts says:

    “[Reply] But the diffuse DWLIR is hitting the frost from above the sunlit ground as well Tim. Where’s the awesome energy? :)”

    We were through this above .. and you even showed you understood with your soup example above. If you thought about it, you would realize that this example specifically requires that the “awesome energy” of DWLWIR is exceptionally small. But here is the same physics of the soup example (just slightly expanded).

    The frosty surface — vegetation and ice mostly — will have an emissivity of about 1, so if it is @ 0 C it will emit about 310 W/m^2 of IR. As long as it receives 310 W/m^2 (or less) of incoming power, it will stay frozen. MODTRAN suggests the in incoming IR would be significant — maybe 200 W/m^2 (cold sky, no clouds to radiate). The diffuse IR from the surroundings would add a little, but these cover a very small part of the view — maybe a few 10’s of W/m^2 total. Diffuse sunlight would provide some input as well — maybe a few 10’s of W/m^2 to the light-colored icy surfaces. The caption stated the ground below and the air above were slightly warmer, but conduction would still be pretty minimal on a calm day – maybe a few W/m^2.

    Add up these inputs and it is quite possible — despite a relatively large bit of “back radiation” — the the ground could stay frozen on a still, cloudless day in a shady spot with temps slightly above zero. This example specifically requires that the “awesome energy” of DWLWIR is exceptionally small.

  39. Tim Folkerts says:

    “t’s an important distinction. we are trying to get you both to realise that the primary energy flow is
    Sun > Oceans > atmosphere > space.”

    Yes. We really do get it. It’s not that tricky. And it should really be something more like (the dots are just place holders)

    . . . . . . . . . . . .↗ atmosphere > space
    Sun > Oceans
    . . . . . . . . . . . . ↘ space

    With a secondary, but vital alternate energy flow route straight to space.

    In particular we are trying to get you all to realize is that without the atmosphere, the primary (and only) energy flow would instead be simply straight to space:

    Sun > Oceans > space.

    Immediately after magically removing the atmosphere, we would have REDUCED evaporative and convective and radiative heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere (by ~ 80, 20, and 20 W/m^2 respectively). But w INCREASED thermal IR loses straight to space (from ~ 40 W/m^2 to ~ 390 W/m^2. A net change of over W/m^s if we suddenly removed the atmosphere.

    higher power loss = cooler temps.

  40. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: The atmosphere isn’t going anywhere. It’s held down by the gravity which acts on the atmospheric mass to raise near surface air density and restrict evaporation. that’s what slows the heat loss from an ocean which is forced to get warm enough to be in equilibrium by the sun. The radiative quantities are a neat way to measure and calculate, but they are resultant quantities which are symptoms of the effects of pressure, not the cause of the temperature of the ocean.

  41. Trick says:

    tallbloke 8:47pm: Following the pea further:

    Exec Conclusion: One can not use the difference in the green and blue graphs observed data to conclude “…the ocean is on the global average (take note Trick), around 2C warmer than the air.” The difference is lower. How much lower? No guess. I will let the experts figure it out if they have not already done so in a cite someone may find.

    ******

    Exec. summary: MOHMAT is night time surface air temp so MOHMAT as shown needs be corrected upwards for day & night.

    HADISST is bulk SST day & night about 1m depth recently, up to 10m deep for historical. The paper I posted 8:44 Fig 1. shows one ideally & roughly needs to subtract 0.6C from bulk SST to get “what the air feels” at night and add 1.5C to bulk SST get “what the air feels” during day.

    The observed bulk SST HADISST is presumably avg.d night & day so it is both 0.6C too high at night and 1.5 too low during the day for “what the air feels”.

    ******

    Details:

    Tisdale link says the MOHMAT data are nightime air temp.s quoting exact words: “consider that the MOHMAT data includes only nighttime readings” meaning per Hadley Center “between one hour after sunset and one hour after sunrise.” This is confirmed by the official paper at Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets: “Met Office historical marine air temperature (night) data set MOHMAT4N”

    The Met Office historical marine air temperature (MOHMAT) data set [Bottomley et al., 1990; Parker et al., 1995b] is partitioned into day and night marine air temperature. This reduces bias in the data due to the evening persistence of warmth from solar heating of ships’ decks.”

    HADISST depth of reading early data was ~1-10m:

    “….buckets used for much of the historical SST record to collect seawater, as well as fixed or drifting buoys, sample the bulk temperature of the water around a meter or less below the sea surface. However, many measurements taken by modern voluntary observing ships use engine room intake water thermometers, or, much less often, hull contact sensors; these are representative of the mixed layer temperature down to about 10 m below the surface.”

    HADISST current data: “We chose to use SSTs from the advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR)..”

    “Satellite-borne radiometers estimate the surface skin temperature of the sea, if atmospheric properties are fully accounted for…..”

    EXCEPT it is not skin temp. HADISST is tuned to bulk SST:

    “However, the algorithms used to retrieve the AVHRR SSTs had been tuned by regression of brightness temperatures from the different infrared AVHRR channels onto in situ SST data from a set of drifting buoys. So the AVHRR SSTs are in principle equivalent to in situ measurements of bulk SST.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

  42. Kristian says:

    tallbloke says, July 10, 2014 at 8:31 pm:

    “”Tim F: * DWLWIR “slows down cooling” of the surface by about 300 W/m^2

    OK, you now agree it’s slowing down cooling we are discussing, good. But once again you need to consider the net value. Down minus up.”

    Tallbloke, the atmosphere slows the cooling of the solar-heated surface simply by being warm (temp gradient) and by weighing down on it, not at all because it contains radiatively active gases. The 396 and 333 W/m^2 are still made-up numbers. Only the 63 UP is real. I (think I) know you agree to this.

    Isn’t it better to let this basic understanding frame the discussion here rather than the warmists’ absolute addiction to radiation?

    “The 333 W/m^2 of DWLWIR slows down cooling” – No! Don’t fall for it! Don’t take the bait! It doesn’t. Because it’s a made-up number, it’s not a real, separately working energy flow, it’s a potential, mathematically devised ‘flow’, in reality part of an integrated, continuously, instantaneously and simultaneously changing energy exchange between hot and cold – the actual ‘flow of energy’ in nature ONLY and ALWAYS goes from hot to cold. The temperature difference between surface and air above, the gradient away from the solar-heated surface, through the medium surrounding it, is what limits the outgoing ‘flow of energy’.

  43. Trick says:

    tallbloke 9:49pm: “..realise that the primary energy flow is Sun > Oceans > atmosphere > space.”

    Not quite – one can primarily see the sun from land too. Better diagram:

    Sun > atm. + L&O surface > atm. [ > L&O surface + space ] + space > space & moon & sun & some stars all of which can see the earth.

    I hope the stupid tags worked ha….

    [Reply] THIS IS INCORRECT. ONLY ~25% OF INCOMING SOLAR IS ABSORBED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THEREFORE THE PRIMARY FLOW IS FROM SUN TO OCEAN.

  44. Trick says:

    Kristian 11:20pm: “…not at all because it contains radiatively active gases.”

    So Kristian disagrees with the physics in Robinson & Catling 2013 linked above, especially formulas S14, S16, S19. Which the paper uses to successfully explain Fig. 1 for all the Solar System worlds with thick atm.s. Care to fill us in & make your case why these formulas are incorrect?

    “..(333 W/m^2) not a real, separately working energy flow, it’s a potential…”

    This 333 is the radiation from the matter of the atm. towards the surface. All matter radiates at all temperatures at all frequencies all the time. No exceptions. Care to explain & make your case how you get the atm. to turn off its radiation as an exception with standard physics?

    The reality is there is a bath of radiation incident on tallbloke’s tomato soup on his night time patio, from the trees, grass, house, atm., patio furniture, tallbloke, light bulbs, dirt so on. They are all real irradiance not potentials. If the net is suddenly unbalanced such as tallbloke ignites his BBQ, the tomato soup warms until it radiates at higher Tmean in balance.

    “…the actual ‘flow of energy’ in nature ONLY and ALWAYS goes from hot to cold.”

    Respectfully, nope. Energy can flow from cold object to hot object and obey 2nd law as long as entropy of the universe is increased. Tim F. writes the process where that happens very well.

  45. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    July 10, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    ———————————-
    “No. Tried many times to break the news gently to Konrad, there is no sheet of LDPE covering the Earth’s oceans, they are free to evaporatively cool under any condition.”

    And I have popped this sorry Pinata Weasel of yours just as many times. Evaporative cooling was not a factor in the climastrologists -18C claim. Any claim that it was is a lie. Obviously so. After all, how was evaporative cooling supposed to be a factor in cooling from 0C to -18C?!

    “Konrad refuses to write out his calculations and show us where they differ from texts. Konrad refuses to provide any basic calculations at all.”

    I provide solid empirical evidence in the form of repeatable experiments that the standard S-B equations you are using cannot possibly work for the oceans. Demanding calculations based on this type of maths is therefore ludicrous. You have to get the physics right before you do the maths. Physics is not maths. Maths may model physics but it can also model unphysical processes. That is just what climastrologists did.

    Further, my very first post on this thread lays out the calculation methods required. FEA for experiment 1. CFD for experiment 2.

    And this –
    “Here are the steps for your SI Konrad – apply when you get around to writing up & publishing your experiments: adapt, improvise, overcome:
    1) Draw a control volume around the body of interest (here the water)
    2) Account for all energy crossing the control volume; natural movement of energy IN the control volume will not change its Tmean
    3) Apply basic 1st law to control volume: energy in – energy out = m*Cp*dTmean/dt for which at equilibrium dTmean/dt = 0; m,Cp for the water”

    Trick, my experiments prove “natural movement of energy IN the control volume will not change its Tmean” be utterly incorrect. You don’t actually understand the physics. You need to include time ie: FEA or CFD.

    “Have fun getting the basic science right guys.”

    I have 😉
    I have proved that AGW is a physical impossibility. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

    And the fun bit?

    Nothing you now say or do can ever erase the fact that I showed the critical error in the very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis and you and yours left a permanent Internet record of arguing against the truth 😉

    What you have done is forever Trick…

  46. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 10, 2014 at 3:24 pm
    ——————————-
    “1) It is wrong to ask if the atmosphere is a warming or a cooling agent — it is BOTH.”
    No, it is absolutely the correct approach to ask what the NET effect is. (NET means assuming 1 bar pressure, what is the net effect on ocean temperatures of radiation, evaporation and conduction).Over the oceans it is cooling. And because the oceans cover 71% of the planet, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere (give 1 bar surface pressure) is cooling. And in turn, the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.

    “The radiative interaction between ocean and atmosphere is a warming effect (~ 300 W/m^2)”
    Empirical experiment proves this false –

    “GHG’s provides a warming effect for the surface. There is really no way to debate this.”
    False. Radiative gases only increase Tmin over land at night. No way to debate this? Easily done with empirical experiments.

    “The debate is over how much warming”
    You wish…

    “3) Whatever other features are built into a model, it must conserve energy. Konrad’s 80 C ocean surface temperature simply does NOT conserve energy — getting only 240 W/m^2 into the ocean surface, but radiating way more to space. The only solutions I can think of to conserve energy would be
    a) oceans with an emissivity of ~ 0.3 (which even Conrad does not advocate)
    b) some ‘hidden’ source of energy for the ocean that no one knows about
    c) massive back-radiation from the atmosphere — even more than the current ~ 300 W/m^2.”

    Firstly, that’s 80C Tmax. Average temp will depend on depth and speed of vertical circulation. (but you can forget the -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling thing.)

    Lets look again at evaporation constrained solar ponds –

    Here is a small model (poorly insulated) hitting 76.4C –

    Because it is evaporation constrained, DWLWIR is a factor. That was exposed to ~1000 w/m2 sunlight under a -40C sky emitting ~167 w/m2. It hit near 80C in about 3 hours. Without the 167 w/m2 of DWLWIR it would still make that temperature (or beyond with better insulation), it would just take a few minutes longer.

    You can’t turn back time Tim. Climastrologists went and used standard S-B equations on the oceans. They got it wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.

  47. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:15am: ” Further, my very first post on this thread lays out the calculation methods required. FEA for experiment 1. CFD for experiment 2.”

    Great, free the code. Let’s see Konrad’s reasoned analysis FEA and CFD compare to your test set up. I bet yes, the CFD and FEA will be reasonably close to experiment. Oh, and suggest remove the LDPE, let us know what that test & FEA CFD shows.

    “Trick, my experiments prove “natural movement of energy IN the control volume will not change its Tmean” be utterly incorrect.”

    So Konrad disagrees with 1st law. Konrad always likes bold claims. Please support your case experimentally – I would suggest showing some energy moving around IN the water & increasing its Tmean without any energy crossing the control volume. This will be a shock to the physics community.

    “I have proved that AGW is a physical impossibility. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    If this were true for the surface Tmean, satellites would read 255K and Earth surface thermometers would read say 222K. This is not what is observed, thermometers read 288K – same effect different numbers on any thick atm. planet or moon. This will also be quite a shock to Robinson & Catling 2013 Letter whose observations in Fig. 1 & SI proved the opposite for all the worlds with thick atm.s. in the solar system.

    Apparently Konrad’s view is not yet generally accepted even after years of testing & blog publishing.

  48. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 10, 2014 at 10:37 pm
    ——————————————
    “Tim F: The atmosphere isn’t going anywhere. It’s held down by the gravity which acts on the atmospheric mass to raise near surface air density and restrict evaporation. that’s what slows the heat loss from an ocean which is forced to get warm enough to be in equilibrium by the sun. The radiative quantities are a neat way to measure and calculate, but they are resultant quantities which are symptoms of the effects of pressure, not the cause of the temperature of the ocean.”

    This important to emphasise – it is atmospheric pressure that is providing the “set point” for the effect of evaporative cooling. If we had a lower atmospheric pressure, ocean temperatures would be lower.

  49. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    July 11, 2014 at 12:43 am
    ————————————-
    “Great, free the code.”
    Galoppingcamel has the code that would work on experiment 1. It worked for the Lunar regolith, where your S-B calcs fail 😉

    “I would suggest showing some energy moving around IN the water & increasing its Tmean without any energy crossing the control volume.”
    Nowhere do I make this claim. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying. I am saying that the pattern of energy transport within a volume of matter heated and cooled by external radiation will determine the the average temperature and temperature profile within the matter.
    The second experiment posted at the top of the thread –

    shows just that. Illuminated with continuous SW, when radiative equilibrium is achieved, Block A will have the higher average temperature. And the only difference between the blocks is depth of SW absorption. Just like the difference between our oceans and how climastologists calculations treat our oceans…

    “This will be a shock to the physics community.”
    No, just bitter shame for climastrologists. Real physicists understand selective surfaces as do engineers.

    K -“I have proved that AGW is a physical impossibility. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    T -”If this were true for the surface Tmean, satellites would read 255K and Earth surface thermometers would read say 222K. “

    Wrong, I covered that on the previous thread –

    Let’s remove the atmosphere from the planet and re-make the surface in something we know is not a “near blackbody”. Let’s use polished aluminium, with an emissivity of 0.05.

    For an average 240 w/m2 of solar radiation, the surface will now heat to around 539K (266C). toasty! We’ll have to cool that down…

    Let’s add a highly radiative atmosphere. Perhaps pure methane.

    Now we might get the surface down to 373K.

    But what would it look like to a satellite with down looking IR sensors?

    Yep, apparent radiant temperature 255K 😉

    “Apparently Konrad’s view is not yet generally accepted even after years of testing & blog publishing.”

    How many years have you and yours been at it? Hows the whole AGW hoax thing going these days? Not looking good is it….

  50. Trick says:

    Konrad 1:13am: “..(gc model) worked for the Lunar regolith, where your S-B calcs fail …”

    After gc knew the Diviner answer AND right answer + wrong method = bad science. And yes, S-B fails for the moon (BB predicts 270.7K Tmean) as Planck ruled out using his distributiion for 50% moon surface. gc used Planck distribution so…

    “Nowhere do I make this claim. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying.”

    Not so! Quoted Konrad exact words 12:15am: “Trick, my experiments prove “natural movement of energy IN the control volume will not change its Tmean” be utterly incorrect.”

    Want to try again? Remember it’s a recorded talkshop.

    “Wrong, I covered that on the previous thread “

    Uh, Konrad, the Earth surface is not polished aluminum. Of course if it were, the surface temperature would change big time due emissivity of only say 0.05.

    Since the surface is normal L&O, given your hypthesis “net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.” surface would then cool below satellite 255K as your exact words say so. The atm. is in between satellite and surface, if atm. cools as you write then surface must necessarily cool below 255K. This is not observed.

    “How many years have you and yours been at it? “

    I would say since Newton (Law of Cooling) became generally accepted. But even he had shoulders to stand on back to Aristotle or so. So far, Konrad view is not generally accepted. No published paper even.

    “Hows the whole AGW hoax thing going these days? Not looking good is it….”

    Dunno. Don’t ask me, I just have an interest in discussing the science in a talkshop.

  51. suricat says:

    Trick says: July 10, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    This is getting silly when TB shows a 2C diff. temp. between SAT and SST, and then you counterpoint it with this. I disagree with both assumptions.

    TB, temp. diff. between SAT and SST needs to be verified at the same temporal and spatial site to be of any relevance. This gives the ‘dry bulb’ (SAT) and ‘wet bulb’ (SST) value for each observation. Thus, presents a psychrometric method to calculate the ‘root source’ for ‘near surface humidity’ (NSH, which has always been considdered ~constant over sea surface globally [there’s a reason for that, but not just yet]).

    I’ve not read the papers you present, but read them carefully for their ‘macroscopic/microscopic’ POV. Macroscopically (without an external heat source [pan of boiling water on the stove]), water is generally colder than the air above, unless the air above is saturated with WV. Supersaturated air above indicates an SST higher than the SAT and seeds a hurricane.

    Trick, you disapoint me. We all know that the energy from the twinkly little stars doesn’t bother Earth a hoot, unless they ‘go nova’. 😉

    I think it’s important to say that SST needs to be ‘divorced’ from ‘LST’ (Land Surface Temperature). SST cools by WV emission and LST cools by ‘radiation emission + WV emission’. Thus, there should be debate on the differences between land surface and sea surface.

    Guys, this should point the way to the power that latent heat plays in keeping Earth’s surface cool and eventually lead into the role of ocean heat dumping in the upper tropo.

    Best regards, Ray.

  52. Tim Folkerts says:

    Konrad says: “Wrong, I covered that on the previous thread …”
    … and I already pointed out some problems:
    * your “polished aluminum” is pure black for visible light (so it is not much like any real materials on earth’s surface)
    * radiating layers above this surface could either warm or cool the surface depending on the properties of the layers (so you can’t make a blanket statement like adding a radiating gas will necessarily cool the surface).
    * this is not anything like the earth, so it only vaguely valuable as a way to foment better understanding. In particular, the fact that THIS sphere might need cooling to get to 288 K is NO indication that the earth will need cooling to get to 288 K.

    Even your preferred value of emissivity of 0.67 is STILL not enough (by itself) to warm the surface to an average of 288 K, let alone 353 K (80 C).

    “This important to emphasise – it is atmospheric pressure that is providing the “set point” for the effect of evaporative cooling.
    … and again this is putting the cart before the horse. Evaporation is limited by the heat flow out of the atmosphere, which is limited by the radiation from the atmosphere.

    One problem is that everyone has his/her own pet model, and it is impossible to discuss all of them at once. And since many of them are mutually exclusive, we can’t help by talk past each other. I tend to start with very simple models and work up from there. Others start with the earth as it it now. Others start with some specific experiment they tried. Some are willing to consider certain simplifications, while others are not (could we consider the lighting as uniform? could we remove all GHG’s? could we have a perfect blackbody? … ).

    Unless we agree to a model first and discuss that one model, then we are doomed to a very unproductive discussion.

  53. Trick says:

    suricat (Ray) 1:53am: “I disagree with both assumptions….I’ve not read the papers… could be root cause of “Trick, you disapoint me.”

    ”…water is generally colder than the air above…”

    Yes by the lapse rate, trouble is figuring and analyzing the surface air temperature and the sea surface temperature at their exact contact point as the lapse rate begins. This is far from trivial.

    “..SST cools by WV emission..”

    All matter radiates so does ocean which is also a selective surface. I am trying to picture “water vapor emission” from the sea – you mean spray? – you may want to clarify.

    ”..power that latent heat plays in keeping Earth’s surface cool…”

    Just as much LH leaves surface as returns to surface or the oceans would have evaporated to space long ago. There is balance fortunately.

  54. Trick says:

    Tim F. 2:04am: “..your “polished aluminum” is pure black for visible light..”

    You may want to restate that Tim, my eyes see very well in visible band and I can tell you polished aluminum is not black to my eyes anyway. Gives me a chance to say polished aluminum is not natural in getting emissivity that low takes some work as on most natural materials.

    “…we are doomed to a very unproductive discussion.”

    Geez, I’ve never seen any evidence of that on any blog…LOL. /sarc

  55. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    July 11, 2014 at 1:49 am
    ——————————–
    “And yes, S-B fails for the moon…”

    Yep, and for the oceans as well.

    “Not so! Quoted Konrad exact words 12:15am:”

    Thrash and flex, but there is no escape. You are mis-representing my claims. I am clearly showing via empirical experiment that two systems can be in external radiative equilibrium, but have entirely different average temperatures due the nature of energy transport within the systems.

    “Uh, Konrad, the Earth surface is not polished aluminium.”

    Do I claim it is? No. A simple thought experiment and you have to try that pathetic tactic…says it all really.

    “Since the surface is normal L&O, given your hypthesis “net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.” surface would then cool below satellite 255K as your exact words say so. The atm. is in between satellite and surface, if atm. cools as you write then surface must necessarily cool below 255K.”

    Again you lie. The surface would not cool from 255K because the surface would not be at 255K in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. The oceans are not a “near blackbody”, any claim they are is completely false.

  56. Tim Folkerts says:

    Tim F. 2:04am: “..your “polished aluminum” is pure black for visible light..”

    Trick: You may want to restate that Tim

    OK .. “the only way to get the temperature of 539 K that Konrad quoted for 240 W/m^2 of input power is to have the emissivity for LWIR = 0.05, but to have the absorptivity for sunlight = 1.0.”

    The surface MUST absorb sunlight perfectly, but emit IR poorly. If it was like real aluminum, the temperature would be more like 300 K (give or take a little).

  57. Trick says:

    Konrad 2:38am: “Yep, and for the oceans as well.”

    No. Oceans pass Planck’s criteria, set emissivity to 0.95 on your IR device and you will reasonably close read the temperature of a thermometer reasonably in the same ocean water.

    “I am clearly showing via empirical experiment that two systems can be in external radiative equilibrium, but have entirely different average temperatures due the nature of energy transport within the systems.”

    Konrad dodges the previous problem into a new one: If two objects are in thermal equilibrium or radiative exchange equilibrium, the two objects have the same Tmean by definition all T change ceases, when interconversion of energy between thermal radiation and energy content in matter is nil. This is where thermo. starts:

    Cite Part 1, Chapter 1 paragraph 2, page 1&2: Treatise on Thermodynamics – M. Planck

    https://archive.org/details/treatiseonthermo00planrich

    “Do I claim it is? No. A simple thought experiment and you have to try that pathetic tactic…says it all really.”

    Yet another dodge. You made up a thought experiment with planet surface of polished aluminum for purposes of proving my post “Wrong, I covered that on the previous thread “

    “Again you lie. The surface would not cool from 255K because the surface would not be at 255K in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR.”

    This is nonsense. The sense is the satellites measure 255K. If the atm. were cooling agent then there is no other possibility than a cooler than 255K surface temperature. Robinson & Catling 2013 prove the atm. optical depth being a surface warming agent on all the worlds in the Solar System having thick atm.s. See their Fig. 1 and SI.

  58. Whow!! What a difference 12 hours can make. Some houskeeping:
    Roger, Thank you for this thread, I think! It truly is an extension of a previous thread.
    I my part this was not supposed to be some toy planet, and thought problem, but instead, was a simplified version of this measurable Earth, with only one electromagnetic energy source. A uniform radiance in all other directions. No details of how the surface and atmosphere interact.
    Konrad, I asked you to check my, to be agreed upon constants and variables for this planet, Please someone check, then agree or disagree. Tim can have his Schwarzschild (two stream) concept, untill that can be properly buried. Trick and Konrad, can argue about what happen at the atmosphere surface interface, if there is one that we can agree upon, with temperature pressure and everything. What is that agreement? Please someone, agree to agree, or get off of Rogers bus, you do not have to go to the back of the bus, because of your personal opinion.

    @ Arfur Bryant says: July 10, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    “All, We don’t need thought experiments. We have planet Earth. We have enough data – even if some disagree with all the data – to tell us reasonable answers to the big questions.”

    I agree Arfur!

    @Tim Folkerts says: July 10, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    “Arfur, you misunderstand me (as does Will with his model in the top post). At this level of discussion and analysis, all I am hoping to show general principles — to get the discussion in the right ballpark. Things like …?”

    “* GHGs provide a warming effect at the surface
    * the lapse rate is a critical part of the GHE
    * albedo and emissivity of the surface matter”

    Here I disagree! This is but Tim’s incessant promotion of a conjecture with acronym, GHE, while deliberatly, never saying what that conjucture may be! Pick one:

    Green House Error!
    Green House Edict!
    Green House Embarrassment!
    Green House Equivocation!

    I refuse to accept “Green House Effect” as there is no such effect in effect on this Earth!

    Please define “warming”, “effect”, “lapse rate”, “critical”, “albedo”, “emissivity”, and epecially your ambiguous “radiation” ! Tim is pulling the same crap as snake oil salesman used with the term “brightness” prior to 1982, when that ambiguity was all replaced by the proper SI electromagnetic radiative terms. Even after the machinations of William Connolley, most terms on Wiki are still correct. All now false definitions have been identified!

    Tim Folkerts says: July 10, 2014 at 6:55 pm
    “The answer is basically the same. A warm bowl of soup surrounded by a cooler microwave can still warm when the microwaves are turned on. And the warm ocean surrounded by a cooler atmosphere can still still warm when the sun is turned on.”

    If you would ever bother to measure anything, you would notice that that your microwave oven has a brightness temperature of several thousand Kelvin, and can supply no electromagnetix flux to anything of higher temperature. Put a 3 cm long fine steel wire, like from a breadbag closure, on a ceramic dish in the microwave, turn on for 90 seconds, then through away your failed ceramic dish!

    “This is conservation of energy. DWLWIR helps keep the earth warm. And it turns out this effect is MUCH larger than convection or evaporation, so the net effect of the atmosphere is WARMING not COOLING.”

    Demonstrate any downward radiative flux fron any lower temperature atmosphere! All your fantasy. This planet with variable input electromagnetic flux, variable electromagnetic exitance, and almost infinite ocean sensible heat capacity, has no need for any conservation of energy over periods of hundreds of years.

  59. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 11, 2014 at 2:04 am
    ———————————–
    “… and I already pointed out some problems”
    You did, but you got the absorption wrong. I was indeed using the standard S-B equation for BOTH emissivity and absorption being 0.05. For 240 w/m2 that’s 266C equilibrium temp.

    “your “polished aluminum” is pure black for visible light (so it is not much like any real materials on earth’s surface)”
    You are right, Trick is wrong. Aluminium crystals are indeed black, just very, very reflective.

    “radiating layers above this surface could either warm or cool the surface depending on the properties of the layers (so you can’t make a blanket statement like adding a radiating gas will necessarily cool the surface).”
    For the case shown, “planet aluminium”, a pure methane atmosphere would certainly cool the surface and appear at 255K when viewed from space.

    “this is not anything like the earth, so it only vaguely valuable as a way to foment better understanding. In particular, the fact that THIS sphere might need cooling to get to 288 K is NO indication that the earth will need cooling to get to 288 K”
    No, but empirical experiment shows that the oceans would be far hotter than 255K in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. Therefore the very foundation of AGW is invalidated.

    “Even your preferred value of emissivity of 0.67 is STILL not enough (by itself) to warm the surface to an average of 288 K, let alone 353 K (80 C).”
    First 0.67 is not “my” preferred emissivity for anything. Secondly, and most importantly, I claiming that the “selective surface effect” is what is heating our oceans above some make believe blackbody temperature.

    “ Evaporation is limited by the heat flow out of the atmosphere, which is limited by the radiation from the atmosphere.”
    Good that you acknowledge this. Now if there were no radiative gases in the atmosphere, how good would the atmosphere be at evaporatively cooling the oceans?

    “Unless we agree to a model first and discuss that one model, then we are doomed to a very unproductive discussion.”
    Well the first step is to get the physics right before even thinking of running to maths. If you are trying to apply standard S-B equations to moving gases and transparent liquids, there is no hope.

  60. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 11, 2014 at 3:07 am
    ———————————
    “the only way to get the temperature of 539 K that Konrad quoted for 240 W/m^2 of input power is to have the emissivity for LWIR = 0.05, but to have the absorptivity for sunlight = 1.0.”

    Arrrgh! No Tim. No, no, no.

    It’s the old black car with chrome trim problem. Park the car in the sun. The black paint heats fastest, but after a few hours the chrome trim is far hotter. The chrome reflects more radiation, but the tiny amount it absorbs allows it to rise to a higher equilibrium temperature as it is a poor radiator.

    I used aluminium because it is a fair “grey body”. What if I had used nickel?
    Here’s a simple one –
    take two plates. One aluminium and one nickel. Insulate their back face. Polish each front face till 95% of incident SW is reflected. Place at 1 AU from the sun in a vacuum. The aluminium will heat to a stunning 832K. And the nickel? Where did that go? Turned incandessent and broke up. Why did that happen? They were both reflecting and absorbing equal amounts…

    Aluminium can be considered a “grey body” but nickel is best considered a “selective surface” as its absorption an emission are highly spectrally dependant. Nickel is a very poor radiator in IR.

  61. mkelly says: July 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    “The power of DWLWIR is shown here.”
    http://climaterealists.com/?action=report&uid=8100&id=9004

    That is a wonderful example of how and why your so called DWLWIR is but a fantasy!

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 10, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    “Tallbloke, when you say “No Tim. The net effect is to slow the cooling, not warming.” this is just semantics. No matter how you say that, the ocean is warmer because there is an atmosphere providing DWLWIR. Remove the atmosphere and the ocean will be cooler”.

    We do not have a planet with no atmosphere! With any planet with a partially emmisive atmosphere The S-B equation cannot ever be used to predict any surface temperature.
    It is because of this fake prediction by Hansen et all, that allows all luke warmers, to continue with the Green House Equivocation! Such has no part in the physical of this Earth

    “Do you (or anyone else) disagree with any of the following? On earth under current conditions (rounding off considerably):
    * evaporation “speeds up cooling” of the surface by about about 80 W/m^2
    * conduction/convection “speeds up cooling” of the surface by about 20 W/m^2
    * DWLWIR “slows down cooling” of the surface by about 300 W/m^2
    * the net effect is to “slow down cooling” of the surface by about 200 W/m^2″”

    I must surely disagree! You cannot demonstrate any DWLWIR flux. You cannot even demonstrate any UWLWIR flux. All is your fantasy, and a contradiction of Maxwell’s equations!
    You have not measured any radiative flux, nor have even attempted to properly calculate, possible thermal electromagnetic surface flux in accordance with Maxwell’s equations.
    All of your falsely claimed flux proportional to T^4 of an emissive surface is never physical.
    Any use of the Schwarzschild (two stream) concept with an atmosphere like that of the Earth is intentional fakery, intended only to deceive!
    You cannot even demonstrate that, with an atmosphere like the Earth’s, there is any need for any outward surface thermal electromagnetic flux, to achive radiative thermodynamic equilibrium.

  62. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    July 11, 2014 at 3:16 am
    ———————————————-
    “No. Oceans pass Planck’s criteria, set emissivity to 0.95 on your IR device and you will reasonably close read the temperature of a thermometer reasonably in the same ocean water.”

    How many times? 0.95 is the emissivity setting you use to calibrate an IR instrument to measure the APPARENT emissivity of water in a sea of background radiation. No matter how many times you try to claim it, it is not the EFEECTIVE IR emissivity of water. I have measured the effective emissivity of water to be lower than 0.8, simply by eliminating most DWLWIR.

    “ The sense is the satellites measure 255K. If the atm. were cooling agent then there is no other possibility than a cooler than 255K surface temperature.”

    Satellites measure 255K because the planet is near radiative equilibrium. This tells you nothing about surface temperatures. No other possibility? Look again at selective surface experiment 1. Both blocks appear exactly the same to external IR measurement after they have reached radiative equilibrium, but the base of block A has the higher temperature…

    The only difference? Depth of SW absorption. Now where is SW absorbed on our planet? At the surface of the oceans as climastrologists calculated, or below the surface?

    “Robinson & Catling 2013 prove…blah, blah, blah.”
    They proved nothing. Their text clearly used the inane 255K assumption for the surface of earth in the absence of atmosphere. Any claim they didn’t do this is also a lie.

  63. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: this is not anything like the earth

    So you are allowed ‘baggie world’ but Konrad isn’t allowed ‘polished aluminium world’?

    the heat flow out of the atmosphere, which is limited by the radiation from the atmosphere

    We already blew this canard out of the sky. There is more than enough radiative capability to lose as much heat to space as arrives at the TOA.
    THERE IS NO RADIATIVE ‘THROTTLING’ AT HIGH ALTITUDE.

    Unless we agree to a model first and discuss that one model, then we are doomed to a very unproductive discussion.

    We’ve had several ‘one model’ discussions. This one is ‘free form’. It’s productive for me so far. I notice you haven’t addressed my point here, that Konrad agreed was worth restating, so here it is for a third time:

    July 10, 2014 at 10:37 pm (Edit)
    Tim F: The atmosphere isn’t going anywhere. It’s held down by the gravity which acts on the atmospheric mass to raise near surface air density and restrict evaporation. that’s what slows the heat loss from an ocean which is forced to get warm enough to be in equilibrium by the sun. The radiative quantities are a neat way to measure and calculate, but they are resultant quantities which are symptoms of the effects of pressure [and insulation], not the cause of the temperature of the ocean.

    Please address the bolded part of the statement.

  64. tallbloke says:

    Trick: If the atm. were cooling agent then there is no other possibility than a cooler than 255K surface temperature.

    Yes there is, because as well as being a NET cooling agent (Don’t forget Konrad emphasised ‘NET’).
    Near the surface they are also INSULATING and slowing heat loss from the ocean by THROTTLING the evaporation rate with PRESSURE.

    Summary of the atmosphere:
    Insulation and restriction of evaporation at the surface slowing the rate of cooling there.
    A lot of cooling via latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface and radiation to space by water vapour.

    NET overall effect: Cooling.

    Summary of the ocean:
    Warmed by the Sun.

  65. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 11, 2014 at 6:46 am
    ———————————-
    Plastic baggie world exploded. Aluminium world is a little more… “Robust” 😉

    “There is more than enough radiative capability to lose as much heat to space as arrives at the TOA.”
    Yes, and given our distance from the sun, the only way to make this place run hotter would be to increase surface pressure or remove those radiative gases from the atmosphere.

    “A little warming via absorbed longwave”
    But only over about 29% of the surface and maybe some polar waters that are too cold for much evaporation.

  66. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: “A little warming via absorbed longwave”
    But only over about 29% of the surface and maybe some polar waters that are too cold for much evaporation.

    Yes, I just edited that out of my comment because it isn’t a ‘NET’ effect.

    the only way to make this place run hotter would be to increase surface pressure or remove those radiative gases from the atmosphere.

    So in that scenario we’d have a cold surface and a very very hot upper atmosphere?

  67. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 11, 2014 at 7:25 am
    ——————————-
    In the increased pressure circumstance, the set point for evaporative cooling of the oceans would be raised, and their surface temp and that of the air above would rise. Air temp over land would also increase, just as in my early N&Z pressure experiments and just like the land areas on earth currently below sea level.

    Could scenario 1 ever really occur? It would appear to be physically possible as Venus with similar gravity can retain a much higher atmospheric pressure. A crust busting extraterrestrial impact could cause this on earth.

    In the second circumstance, an atmosphere without radiative cooling ability, most of the atmosphere would likely expand beyond geomagnetic protection and be lost to space. Remember there are no planets or moons we know of that have managed to retain an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases. However as H2O is a radiative gas, this can’t happen on our planet without loss of the oceans.

    The giant thirsty alien scenario is even less plausible than the crust busting asteroid. (although slightly more plausible than the idea that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces the atmospheres radiative cooling ability…)

  68. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: I agree ‘no GHG’ means ‘No ocean’. It would get windy, like Venus. That would take dust up into the atmosphere, which would radiate from above ground to space.With the 0.67 emissivity of sand and soil, the ground would be above freezing, but we’d be living in a sandstorm on a dry planet, and end up more like Mars but closer to the Sun.

  69. tallbloke says: July 11, 2014 at 7:25 am

    Konrad: “A little warming via absorbed longwave”
    But only over about 29% of the surface and maybe some polar waters that are too cold for much evaporation.

    Yes, I just edited that out of my comment because it isn’t a ‘NET’ effect.

    ??? Solar radiation at greater than 2 microns is less than 1% of total solar
    Solar radiation ar less than 0.4 microns UV etc. can be greater than 30% at times, CME’s. The upper atmosphere absorbs and reradiates most of that, ocean gets some.

    As far as evaporation and latent heat the 70% ocean does less than 50% of latent heat to the atmosphere. Most is done by broadleaf vegetation (trees) which expire converted rootwater at tremendous volumes independent of atmospheric pressure and with no increase in sensible heat of the leaves. The total leaf surface also does not decrease with cosine (theta) as that surface nears either terminator. The low density H2O gas can rapidly advect upward, through the more dense gases taking all that latent (2400 J/g) with it, to be converted to sensible heat and radiated outward as the condensation proceeds. A truly fine refrigerator all powered by the Sun. The tree leaves are the true thermostat. They go to the other end of the planet during local winter, with no transportation cost! That process is the only known refrigeration cycle where all waste heat is actually discarded as entropy, at a temperature lower than the source temperature. What a wonderful planet!

  70. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Thanks, very interesting comment. I need time to absorb that and check the figures. I was under the impression only around 25% of incoming solar was absorbed in the atmosphere. Pressure affects evaporation from leaves too. Please expand on this:

    “The total leaf surface also does not decrease with cosine (theta) as that surface nears either terminator”

  71. Brian H says:

    Simple question: why the baggie? Water and other gasses are free to evaporate from the outer atmosphere to space.

  72. tallbloke says: July 11, 2014 at 8:25 am

    “Will J: Thanks, very interesting comment. I need time to absorb that and check the figures. I was under the impression only around 25% of incoming solar was absorbed in the atmosphere.”

    Normally that is true. During a mass ejection the, the electromagnetic radiance of the ejecta can be 50,000 that of the rest of the sun, at temperatures exceeding 10^6 Kelvin. The O2, N2, and NO2 in the mesosphere intercept most extreme UV, and gamma radiation, while the earth’s magnetic field deflect the charged particles way.

    “Pressure affects evaporation from leaves too.”

    Not really, as photosynthesis is a chemical, not thermodynamic process. The energetic red and blue solar flux is absorbed without thermalization, and rips water molecules apart storing hydrogen atoms, and creating free O2 and “gobs” of H2O vapor, at pressures higher than atmospheric and expires these gases continually during daylight hours. This solar energy never even becomes sensible heat of the near surface. It is all radiated directly to cold space by the atmosphere. Another reason why using the S-B equation to estimate surface temperature is equivocation only.

    “Please expand on this: The total leaf surface also does not decrease with cosine (theta) as that surface nears either terminator”

    Another geometry thingy. From the POV of the sun a tree (leaves) only have a cross sectional area that absorbs 80% of visable light whether direct insolation or from atmospheric mie scattering. This effective area does not decrease as the tree approaches the dark side, indeed the tree continues that process for a while after the sun sets, from that scattering..

  73. tallbloke says:

    Thanks again Will, most informative.

  74. Ben Wouters says:

    If my math is correct, a kwh can warm one m^3 of seawater ~ 0,9K.

    Following site has data for solar power per 24hrs falling on a horizontal m^2:
    http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/average-solar-radiation#
    7kwh is a pretty high number, yet is will only warm 1m^3 ~ 6,3K every 24hrs.
    Assuming solar heats the upper 10 meter reduces this number to 0,63K
    For 100 meter the number is only 0,063K
    The other way: 10cm gives ~63K.

    Now on this site we can see the warming effect of the sun during one full year at 32N:
    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm

    Taking into account energy loss over the same 24 hrs at the surface,
    and ocean currents moving warm (sub)tropical water towards the poles,
    I don’t see how the sun can be the only source of energy to warm the total oceans to their
    present temperatures. ( ~275K for the deep oceans, ~290K for the average surface temps)

  75. Konrad says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    July 11, 2014 at 8:21 am
    ———————————-
    “Solar radiation at greater than 2 microns is less than 1% of total solar”

    Yes, I know what you were saying. But clouds after formation do cause a slight warming (slowing the cooling rate) of the land only surface. I wasn’t doing something totally inane like claiming “back radiation” from clear sky was slowing the cooling of anything…Sheesh!

    And then you just had to go and do leaves!!!

    Leaves are hard. Leaves are harder than the oceans!

    They try and transpire to maintain constant temp, but in doing so they alter their local radiative environment. Why were you doing leaves? Pain. There is only pain…

  76. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: Well if will is correct that more than half the evapo-transpiration of water is done by broad leaves we have to get interested in this stuff…

  77. Trick says:

    tallbloke 6:58am: “Near the surface they are also INSULATING” and slowing heat loss from the ocean..”

    More accurate to use “energy loss” in modern language, this is confirmed by the optical depth physics & measurements. Agrees with Robinson & Catling observations in their Fig. 1, the thick atm.s enable the sun warm the surface Tmean above Tmean measured by satellites and/or remote sensing on all the worlds in the Solar System with thick atm.s.

    “Summary of the ocean: Warmed by the Sun.”

    Yes, sun being the major fuel source. As is the land surface and atm. For Ben, yes they are all also warmed somewhat by energy provided from geothermal.

    6:46am: “THERE IS NO RADIATIVE ‘THROTTLING’ AT HIGH ALTITUDE.”

    As shown in Robinson & Catling Fig. 1 z height above about p=0.1bar. “High” being defined by stratosphere becoming near transparent to thermal radiation p less than 0.1bar for worlds in the Solar System.

  78. tallbloke says:

    Ben W: “If my math is correct, a kwh can warm one m^3 of seawater ~ 0,9K.”

    1Kwh = 3.6MJ
    Specific heat of water is 4.187 kJ/kgK
    Seawater is around 1020Kg/m^3

    so around 1m^3 will be heated 0.843C by 1kWh

    Taking into account energy loss…I don’t see how the sun can be the only source of energy to warm the total oceans to their present temperatures.

    You say “taking into account the energy loss”, but you haven’t given a figure for it. The point you are missing is that the energy loss is only as high as it is because the ocean has been forced to rise to the temperature it is at, in order to reach equilibrium.

    So on the other side of the equilibrium equation we balance loss with gain. This will be from the Sun, plus whatever geothermal enters from below.

  79. Trick says:

    Konrad 5:40am: “Satellites measure 255K because the planet is near radiative equilibrium. This tells you nothing about surface temperatures.”

    Correct. Thermometers tell us about Earth surface temperature. Surface Tmean is measured higher than Tmean of satellites so the sun’s NET effect on Earth near surface atmosphere is to fuel 33K L&O surface warming. As on all the thick atm. planets & moons in Solar System.

    “Now where is SW absorbed on our planet? At the surface of the oceans as climastrologists calculated, or below the surface?”

    Solar SW is absorbed (death of photons) in part by the atm., by the land surface, and up to around 300m deep in the liquid oceans because the oceans are both a gray body and selective surface. These bodies also in part reflect (life of photons). Oceans & land emit (birth of photons) from depth not just surface.

  80. tallbloke says:

    Trick: As on all all the thick atm. planets & moons in Solar System.

    As I pointed out before, all the worlds in the Solar System with thick atm.s. also have a heavy atm.s. which exerts pressure on the surface, limiting evaporation and raising molecular density. It is these effects which cause the surface T to be high, not DWLIR, which has almost no net flux near the surface. So although the claculations using radiation-only pan out, they are a convenience of symptom measurement, not an indication of causality.

    Your persistent failure to recognise and acknowledge this makes me feel you are not debating in good faith.

  81. Arfur Bryant says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 10, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    [“Arfur, you misunderstand me (as does Will with his model in the top post). At this level of discussion and analysis, all I am hoping to show general principles — to get the discussion in the right ballpark. Things like …

    * GHGs provide a warming effect at the surface
    * the lapse rate is a critical part of the GHE
    * albedo and emissivity of the surface matter

    When there are people who believe things like the GHE violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, there is no point in discussing the MAGNITUDE of the effect until we can establish the EXISTENCE of the effect.

    PS there are many estimates of the actual contribution of CO2 online — you are welcome to look them up and critique their choices. But that is an entirely different discussion.”]

    Tim, I do understand. That is the point I am making. You want to use ‘thought experiments’ and ‘models’ to prove your belief in the radiative GHE as espoused by the IPCC.

    My point – as Will Janoschka so eruditely points out at July 11, 2014 at 4:29 am – is that any such thought experiments and models are based on an assumption that the radiative GE is correct. Once that assumption is made, all models and experiments are aimed to try to prove that assumption (and they are manifestly not proving it).

    What the real-world, observed, planetary data shows is this:

    Any assumed GHG => radiative GHE is either not measurable or not valid. I say this because no-one can prove: a, how much of the observed warming is due to CO2 (and other GHGs) and b, how much of the GHE that existed before 1850 was due to those GHGs over which mankind is supposed to exert a controlling authority.

    Hence the simple question that you consistently refuse to answer. Yes, others have tried to answer (Lacis 20%, Schmidt 26%, Trenberth 26%, scienceofdoom 26%) but they all run away from the next logical question: If 280 ppm CO2 was responsible for 26% of 32.2C, then how can an extra 40% of this ‘potent’ trace gas only be responsible for an unknown portion of a contemporaneous rise in temperature of a mere 0.8C? Because they don’t like that logical path, they then invent ‘other factors’ which they didn’t consider before but are now absolutely convinced are major effects (thermal lag, OHC etc). It is a pathetic deflection of the original posited GHE and one which contains zero adherence to the scientific method.

    So, to your three ‘general principles’:

    1. No, GHGs do not provide a warming effect at the surface except under the rare circumstances where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere.
    2. Well, not really, the lapse rate is an effect of there being an Atmosphere Effect in existence. It is not a cause.But it may be important to a discussion of the Atmosphere Effect.
    3. Yes, they matter at the local level for comparing absorption and emission figures. (But not absorption of DWLWIR unless the surface is cooler…)

    You said: [“When there are people who believe things like the GHE violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, there is no point in discussing the MAGNITUDE of the effect until we can establish the EXISTENCE of the effect.”]

    Before I start, replace the term GHE with ‘Atmosphere Effect’. Now we start with an even playing field, without any pre-conceptions of what a greenhouse should do…

    I would have it slightly different: “When there are people who believe that the radiative GHE theory DOES NOT violate the 2LoT, there is no point discussing…”

    Unfortunately, Tim, your belief in the rGHE prevents you from accepting that the EXISTENCE of the effect is unproven and/or unmeasured. You should not assume the existence now without asking the question I asked before about what existed before ‘anthropogenic’ effects.

    So, please forget the models, they don’t work and are an embarrassment, and please forget thought experiments which do not reflect the real world. Just use the real world. 🙂

    Arfur

  82. Trick says:

    tallbloke 12:27pm: “..heavy atm.s. which exerts pressure on the surface..Your persistent failure to recognise and acknowledge this…”

    I have persistently pointed out in these two threads pressure, specie absorption coefficient, and mass amount of each specie go into optical depth calculation. Pointed out the exact eqn.s in R&C. I am not sure why you have this view, quote my exact words where you find them failing.

  83. tallbloke says:

    Trick: pressure, specie absorption coefficient, and mass amount of each specie go into optical depth calculation

    Now you are being disingenuous and obfuscating. Zero points.

  84. tallbloke says:

    Trick: Submitted on 2014/07/10 at 11:13 pm
    Exec. summary: MOHMAT is night time surface air temp so MOHMAT as shown needs be corrected upwards for day & night.

    The night-time ocean surface temperature doesn’t fall as much as air temperature does. About 1C is the general figure (from memory).

    None of this changes the fact the top of the ocean is warmer than the air is taken on the average.

    The ocean warms the air, not the other way round. especially at night, because the airs heat capacity is tiny compared to the oceans.
    Try going from Mediterranean coast a few kilometres inland around midnight after a hot day to see the truth of this.

  85. Ben Wouters says:

    Trick says: July 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    ” For Ben, yes they are all also warmed somewhat by energy provided from geothermal.”

    Actually the full 275K of the deep oceans is caused by geothermal. I don’t consider this to be “warmed somewhat by energy provided from geothermal.”

  86. Trick says:

    Arfur 12:43am: “…then how can an extra 40% of this ‘potent’ trace gas only be responsible for an unknown portion of a contemporaneous rise in temperature of a mere 0.8C?”

    The detail physics show any atm. optical depth effect on surface Tmean from added IR active gas specie reduces logarithmically as its ppm increases.

    The simplest sort of physics explanation I can think of is being in balance there are only so many limited unmarried photons coming up from surface; as more IR active gas is added there are less and less upcoming photons available and eligible to marry. The IR active gas population becomes more & more lonely, not propagating as much increased Tmean.

    Does that help in any way?

    [Reply] Please address my points properly before proceeding further. Thanks.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Ben W: Actually the full 275K of the deep oceans is caused by geothermal.

    Game on! Let’s calculate how long the Earth’s core and outer core could keep the bulk of the ocean at that temperature before cooling and solidifying. (Unless heretical notions like heating of the core by the heliomagnetic field come into this?)

  88. Trick says:

    tallbloke 12:47pm: My atm. optical depth ref. is sincere. The optical depth calculation is clear.

    ******

    Ben 1:01pm: There isn’t enough geothermal income alone to overcome the outgo of energy radiating out to space at current temperatures, the 275K would have to fall to get in balance with geothermal income.

    [Reply] I don’t doubt it, but it doesn’t address my points. Viz:

    1) Heavy atmosphere raises surface pressure suppressing evaporation, making it harder for ocean to shed energy.
    2) Heavy atmosphere raises surface pressure, raising molecular density, making energy absorbant and energy retentive ‘blanket’ near surface, effectively insulating the ocean and making it harder for ocean to shed energy.
    3) Radiative calcs work out ok, but the levels of LW radiation are mostly a product of the near surface temperature, not their primary cause. This is evidenced by the very small net flux.

  89. Trick says:

    tallbloke in line 1:04pm: ”Please address my points properly before proceeding further. Thanks.”

    Appears you mean this:

    “As I pointed out before, all the worlds in the Solar System with thick atm.s. also have a heavy atm.s. which exerts pressure on the surface, limiting evaporation and raising molecular density. It is these effects which cause the surface T to be high, not DWLIR, which has almost no net flux near the surface. So although the claculations using radiation-only pan out, they are a convenience of symptom measurement, not an indication of causality.

    Your persistent failure to recognise and acknowledge this makes me feel you are not debating in good faith.”

    ******

    Yes, all thick atm.s have heavy atm.s which exert pressure on the surface as shown in clear optical depth calc. which I noted.

    The rate of evaporation depends on the KE of the molecule of liquid, which depends on temperature. As sun warms ocean, more KE of molecules, more evaporation. More evaporation, less KE in the surface liquid. More evaporation, more rain. Less evaporation, less rain. A balance is eventually achieved.

    For earth, balance is at surface Tmean 288K. This seems pedantic but that’s the physics. This evaporation process is not fueling 288K over satellite 255K neither is DWLWIR, the sun is fueling. The 1st law surface balance includes evaporation, includes rain, includes thermals, includes plants & sun & atm. & surface as all participate in surface Tmean balance for Earth. Atm. optical depth enables the sun fuel raise Tmean 33K & ocean evaporation is included as part of the resulting 33K balance offset by rain.

    Need more addressing? Just ask. I find the basic science is interesting to discuss & look into deeper in texts & papers as required.

    [Reply] Yes, more addressing please. You’ve covered (to some extent), point 1.
    “This evaporation process is not fueling 288K”
    I never said it was. Please read what I wrote:
    1) Heavy atmosphere raises surface pressure suppressing evaporation, making it harder for ocean to shed energy.
    You still have not addressed this. Do you dispute it?
    Please keep going. I’m particularly interested to hear what you have to say about point 3.

  90. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 11, 2014 at 11:53 am
    ————————————
    “Konrad: Well if will is correct that more than half the evapo-transpiration of water is done by broad leaves we have to get interested in this stuff…”

    But, leaves are hard. Really hard. Via sap flow, they are even connected to sub-surface temperatures…(Hard?…Hard and waxy in northern/southern extremes and wet and weepy near the equator). Will may be that good. I’m not…

    ///////////////////////////////////////////
    On that note, I do make mistakes. While I do appreciate edits, I would appreciate “strike through” more. This is something Anthony at WUWT has correct. (Wally and the Leaf Blower are not all of WUWT) He never erases his mistakes, just corrects. I am unfamiliar with word-press systems, but if here is any chance of “Strike through” rather than erasure, this would be good. (saying this, I do understand that there are different functionalities available to different levels of user.) My concern is that SKS has set a very negative precedent that should be avoided. (SKS editing is actually worse than that unfortunate “SS uniform” incident)
    ////////////////////////////////////////////

  91. Konrad says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    July 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    tallbloke says:
    July 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Ben is correct. Even without a sun, the bulk of the oceans, except for the surface, would still be liquid. Just like Europa and Enceladus. I believe measurements from Antarctica indicate the ice would be 1000m or less for earth.

  92. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    ———————————–
    Trick says…
    Something I must instantly disagree with…or…

    Nope, not to much to challenge.

    Except “death of photons”. But then studying vector dependant compression waves in vacuum energy, why light appears as both particle and wave and why there are only two universes (I know, boring…there’s so many in science fiction) is a discussion for a very different thread.

    Trick’s being sensible. It’s no fun…

  93. Trick says:

    Konrad 2:07pm: “Just like Europa and Enceladus.”

    Well what do you know, Konrad does believe some physics models. Pretty chilly surface temp. over there. There is also a model for liquid oceans deep in the earth. Physics is interesting discussion, can learn much participating in debates.

  94. Ben Wouters says:

    tallbloke says: July 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    “Game on! Let’s calculate how long the Earth’s core and outer core could keep the bulk of the ocean at that temperature before cooling and solidifying.”

    Why would that be relevant??? 100 mW/m^2 is 100 mW/m^2, whether they end up in the deep oceans or radiate to outer space.
    Earth has been doing fine the last 4.something billion years. I expect it to continue doing fine for the foreseeable future.

  95. Will Janoschka says:

    Konrad says: July 11, 2014 at 11:36 am

    And then you just had to go and do leaves!!!

    Leaves are hard. Leaves are harder than the oceans!

    They try and transpire to maintain constant temp, but in doing so they alter their local radiative environment. Why were you doing leaves? Pain. There is only pain…

    Konrad,
    I am not certain there is anything but “pain”! When my horse turns, smiles, then gently stands onI my foot. I can easily dismiss the horse as imaginary, along with my foot and even me! What I cannot dismiss is the pain. Sorry about leaves, both oceans and leaves are wonderful refrigerators.
    They do operate differently, once past the high school stuff, they are both complex, wonderfully simple, and truly elegant. Why didn’t I think of that? In no way was either designed by earthlings.
    Please check my Earth mass numbers! I hate to find later that the earth cannot maintain its atmosphere by a factor of ten!

  96. oldbrew says:

    Treat this as an aside: here are the given temperatures for 3 small bodies whose orbits are all within 3 days +/- of 365.25d

    3753 Cruithne -273K
    54509 YORP -278K
    2002 AA29 -279K

  97. tallbloke says:

    OB: Interesting. Eccentricities?

  98. Tim Folkerts says:

    There’s way too much to respond to here. I wish we would sit in a room with a white board and start from scratch. Otherwise people are constantly taking 6 steps forward, but losing people (or making mistakes) at the second step.

    A few random thoughts on a few random things that caught my eye …

    “any such thought experiments and models are based on an assumption that the radiative GE is correct.
    Such thoughts are based on standard radiative physics. The models are built on the same equations that that physicist and engineers use all the time to determine heat flow.

    ——————————————————————

    Will is welcome to disregard the concept of photons. Nothing changes regarding heat flow whether two surfaces at the same temperature are hurling equal photons back and forth, or if they simply stop any radiation.

    ——————————————————————

    Konrad’s Al world is a perfectly legitimate thought experiment. If it had 240 W/m^2 heaters buried inside it and an emissivity of 0.05, it would be 529 K. If it actually ABSORBED 240 W/m^2 of sunlight, it would also be 539 K. But to absorb an average of 240 W/m^2 with an absorbance of 0.05, the insolation would have to be 4800 W/m^2. With a “typical” average insolation of 240 W/m^2 at the surface, the surface would have to be “perfectly black” to absorb 240 W/m^2.

    ——————————————————————

    “As I pointed out before, all the worlds in the Solar System with thick atm.s. also have a heavy atm.s ..”
    … but they all also have clouds and/or GHGs to radiate energy. Hence this provides no way by itself to distinguish the importance of pressure vs GHGs.

    ——————————————————————

    As discussed with Tallbloke already, if people want to say that GHGs do not “warm” the surface, but that they do “slow the cooling”, then I am cool with that. The net result is the same — the surface is warmer because we have an atmosphere with GHGs. More precisely, we could say something like “there is indeed a heat flow from the surface to the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is indeed a ‘cooling effect’, but there would be an even greater heat flow from the surface directly to space if there were no CO2, which would be an even greater ‘cooling effect’ on the surface. CO2 makes the surface less cold than it would be with no CO2”.

    ——————————————————————

    To everyone, the evaporation rate is primarily determined by the water temperature and the partial pressure of gaseous H2O. For example, the saturation vapor pressure of water is 2.3 kPa @ 20 C. Once that much water evaporates, there will be no more evaporation regardless of the pressure of the other gases present. I would be interested to see how the pressure of other gases matters, but there is not much around the internet. Does anyone have a handy reference regarding evaporation rates as a function of the pressure of OTHER gases besides H2O?

  99. oldbrew says:

    TB: no pattern in eccentricity… 0.012, 0.23 and 0.515

  100. Tim Folkerts says:

    OB .. those temperatures of those minor objects are in line with standard calculations. For example, YORP is listed as having an albedo of 0.1 (ie absorbance of 0.9). If the emissivity is 0.9, then the BB calculation gives 278 K @ 1 AU.

    They reflect less light than the earth, which would lead to a higher surface temperature. But even this does not get them up to earth’s surface, which requires some way to suppress the outgoing thermal IR.

  101. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: if people want to say that GHGs do not “warm” the surface, but that they do “slow the cooling”, then I am cool with that. The net result is the same — the surface is warmer because we have an atmosphere with GHGs.

    No. The surface is warmer primarily because of the effects of pressure on evaporation and molecular density. The GHG’s in the lower atmosphere aren’t doing anything much, as the minimal net flux demonstrates. Acknowledge or rebut this properly before proceeding further please.

  102. tallbloke says:

    OB: So the 0.012 object shadows the Earth’s orbit pretty closely?

    Which temps belong to which eccentricities?

  103. oldbrew says:

    3753 Cruithne -273K, E = 0.515
    54509 YORP -278K, E = 0.230
    2002 AA29 -279K,E = 0.012

    Data from:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54509_YORP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_AA29

    Cruithne reaches Venus (almost Mercury) at perihelion and Mars at aphelion (approx.)

  104. tallbloke says:

    OB: I suspect those temps are theoretical, using the wrong SB application, like our Moon, which turns out to have 212K average equatorial surface temp when measured by Diviner. (About 230K just a few cm below surface). Clearly the global average has to be below that as the temperature drops off strongly to the poles. The Moon, and your asteriods get around 310W/m^2 average.

    Tim F: OB .. those temperatures of those minor objects are in line with standard calculations. For example, YORP is listed as having an albedo of 0.1 (ie absorbance of 0.9). If the emissivity is 0.9, then the BB calculation gives 278 K @ 1 AU.

    Which goes to show that ‘standard calculations’ from ‘(climatology) standard radiative theory aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

    See Nikolov and Zeller for the correct (spherical integration) technique for applying SB to astro bodies (Although they have since revised the darkside energy loss)
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

  105. Tim Folkerts says:

    Tallbloke says: “The surface is warmer primarily because of the effects of pressure on evaporation and molecular density. … Acknowledge or rebut this properly before proceeding further please.”

    I am not sure what I am supposed to be rebutting! Define which specific “effects” on evaporation and molecular density you are referring to and how they make the surface warmer. Show equations and/or data and/or calculations that support your hypotheses.

    Here is one simple rebuttal. If the atmosphere still had the same pressure, but was suddenly magically transparent to IR, the oceans @ 288 K would emit lots of IR: 390 W/m^2 if ε=1 (a blackbody); 374 W/m^2 if ε=0.96 (a typically quoted value) 261W/m^2 if ε=0.67 (Konrad’s favorite). The earth only absorbs 240 W/m^2, so even Konrad’s choice cannot get the oceans to 288 K (let alone the hypothesized 80 C = 353 K). How can you make your hypothesis meet the limits of conservation of energy?

  106. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: If the atmosphere still had the same pressure, but was suddenly magically transparent to IR, the oceans @ 288 K would emit lots of IR: 390 W/m^2 if ε=1 (a blackbody); 374 W/m^2 if ε=0.96 (a typically quoted value)

    No they wouldn’t, because most of that is simply the ongoing transaction with DWLWIR, so you can take 330W/m^2 ‘backradiation’ off that because it’s no longer there in your scenario. As we keep telling you, the net figure is what you should use.

    Define which specific “effects” on evaporation and molecular density you are referring to and how they make the surface warmer

    They don’t make the surface warmer. They make it cool more slowly. (Sheesh, how many times?).
    Pressure effects:
    1) Heavy atmosphere raises surface pressure suppressing evaporation, making it harder for ocean to shed energy.
    2) Heavy atmosphere raises surface pressure, raising molecular density, making energy absorbant and energy retentive ‘blanket’ near surface, effectively insulating the ocean and making it harder for ocean to shed energy.
    Suggestions for quantifying these effects welcome. Continued obfuscation will lead to moderation. Trick is already on it pondering the same points, plus this one.
    3) Radiative calcs work out ok, but the levels of LW radiation are mostly a product of the near surface temperature, not their primary cause. This is evidenced by the very small net flux.

    Address these issues properly or I will assume your intention here is not to enter substantive debate but to waste our time, in which case I’ll deal with you accordingly.

  107. Tim Folkerts says:

    “Which goes to show that ‘standard calculations’ from ‘(climatology) standard radiative theory aren’t worth the paper they are written on. “

    IT’S NOT CLIMATOLOGY THEORY! It is the rules for radiation that have been in physics and engineering textbooks for a century now! If you are simply going to a priori discount any science that doesn’t match your world view, there is not much more to say! What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?

  108. oldbrew says:

    Here comes the British asteroid mapper – launched 2 days ago.
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-07-09-british-asteroid-mapper-sent-orbit

  109. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?

    Nothing. I didn’t say the SB equation was wrong, I said the application was wrong. Try reading what I wrote.
    It’s the way the equation is misapplied to side illuminated rotating spherical bodies by treating them as permanently (weakly) illuminated flat discs that is the problem. See the link I gave.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

    The flat-earther climatologists need to keep up with the talkshop for the correct methods to use.
    That way, they, and you, wouldn’t end up calculating a surface temperature for the Moon (and asteroids at 1AU) around 60K too high.

    You’re in no position to be demanding I provide calcs and figures for to back up a logical qualitative description of energy flows in Earth’s climate system.

  110. Arfur Bryant says:

    Tim,

    [“Such thoughts are based on standard radiative physics. The models are built on the same equations that that physicist and engineers use all the time to determine heat flow.”]

    So why are the models so far out?

    I notice you did not bother responding to my arguments regarding CO2 and the assumptions made.

    So be it. Let me try to explain something that you consistently ignore.

    What is this ‘standard radiative physics’ to which you keep referring?

    The idea from Prevost that ‘radiant fire particles’ flow both ways? Wow! What happens if you put two or three or four cooler bodies next to a hotter one? Will the increased number of ‘radiant fire particles’ being emitted by the cooler bodies now cause the warm body to get hotter? No they won’t!

    DWLWIR can add no heat to the surface if the surface is warmer than the emitting CO2 molecule. There is NO heat flow from the atmosphere to the surface unless the surface is cooler.
    There is NO ‘radiative effect’ from the CO2 to the surface unless the surface is cooler.

    When SW radiation from the Sun (a hotter body) hits a cooler surface, the energy imparted by the higher frequency SW radiation (photons if you want) will raise the energy (thermal) level of the absorbing surface molecules providing that radiation has the ability to bridge the energy gap to the higher level.
    LW radiation which is emitted by a cooler body (in this case the atmospheric CO2) does not have the ability to increase the energy level of the receiving surface molecules. Notice I didn’t say ‘absorbed’ because there is no absorption for energy gain, which would be required to raise the thermal energy level of the surface. The ‘Atmosphere Effect’ is a more accurate label then ‘the GHE’.

    This is why the DWLWIR arrow in the K&T has no relevance to the surface temperature. And this is why the ‘standard physics radiative effect’ of which you speak has not been evident in the real-world data. It has only been evident in the non-real-world models! The models don’t work because they make false assumptions. Until those folk who believe the posited CO2 => rGHE realise that the real-world data does not support their models, they will not revisit the posited theory.

    They (you) need to revisit the theory. You are a physicist. The scientific method demands that the posited theory is supported by data. It is patently not – in the real world. Therefore the theory is wrong, not the data.

  111. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm:

    “What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?”

    I thought you were a trained physicist, Tim. “P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4)” is the general radiative heat transfer equation, not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. And you know that.

    The radiative heat transfer equation tells us specifically that what makes the atmosphere insulate out solar-heated global surface is the less-than-max temp gradient it sets up away from it. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn’t. And that’s it. None of this has anything to do with the so-called ‘GHGs’. It’s all about the mass of the atmosphere.

  112. suricat says:

    Trick says: July 11, 2014 at 2:14 am

    “could be root cause of”

    Perhaps, but unlikely.

    “Yes by the lapse rate, trouble is figuring and analyzing the surface air temperature and the sea surface temperature at their exact contact point as the lapse rate begins. This is far from trivial.”

    I concur. The energy within the “lapse rate” is ‘majically’ increased by a ‘latent pressence’. I reitterate. Temporal and spatial concurrence of observation is necessary to disclose the ‘source’ of WV content.

    “All matter radiates so does ocean which is also a selective surface. I am trying to picture “water vapor emission” from the sea – you mean spray? – you may want to clarify.”

    No. ‘All mass radiates’. However, when a planck weighted average of ‘irradiated’ EM energy is taken into account we assume a ‘potential temperature’ from that ‘averaged’ wavelength. Hmm. I think you already know this stuff, so….

    The ‘Latent heat’ of a compound doesn’t ‘radiate’ at any ‘rate/wavelength/frequency’ into its environment because the energy ‘consumed’ by its ‘phase change’ is bound up in maintaining its ‘phase’ within its environment. It’s only when the compound’s environment changes beyond its sustainable stability that a change of state ‘may/may not’ occour. These are the ‘step changes’ of ice, water and vapour for H2O and are ‘excursions’ into another ‘atractor’ (chemical) medium for the energy sink. This link may help for some;

    https://www.le.ac.uk/se/centres/sci/selfstudy/particle02.html

    but for a more advanced reader;

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluids-evaporation-latent-heat-d_147.html

    and for the aspiring scientists among us (pardon the link);

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

    where we all may gain some insight into ‘phase transition’.

    “Just as much LH leaves surface as returns to surface or the oceans would have evaporated to space long ago. There is balance fortunately.”

    I’m ‘gobsmacked’ at this statement Trick!!! ‘LH’ (latent heat) is the kinetic chemical energy required to enable a change of phase for the current state of a compound. The compound (in this scenario is H2O) is constrained by gravity, but the ‘energy’ that effects a ‘change of phase’ is most deffinitively NOT!

    I begin to doubt your competence for the evaluation of energy transittion events. H2O leaves the surface as a ‘vapour’ (gas). At altitude, the H2O ‘vapour’ cools and releases IR to the atmosphere as it ‘changes phase’ from its ‘gas state’ into its ‘liquid state’. The ‘net result’ is that WV releases IR as it ascends in the tropo. This results in a ‘lapse rate’ that is extended when compared with the ‘dry’ lapse rate.

    Don’t worry, the oceans won’t ‘evaporate to space’ untill the tropopause temp meets the stratospheric temp of 0C. Our Sun has many millions of years to go before this scenario needs to be addressed. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  113. Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am

    Tim Folkerts says, July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm:

    “What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?”

    “I thought you were a trained physicist, Tim. “P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4)” is the general radiative heat transfer equation, not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. And you know that.”

    “The radiative heat transfer equation tells us specifically that what makes the atmosphere insulate out solar-heated global surface is the less-than-max temp gradient it sets up away from it. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn’t. And that’s it. None of this has anything to do with the so-called ‘GHGs’. It’s all about the mass of the atmosphere.”

    What nonsense where did you get the phrase “The radiative heat transfer equation”? It has nothing about any mass, nor does it have anything to do with an absorptive transmissiom medium.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a calculation of the maximum possible thermal radiative power between a flat surface with area A and a larger enclosing hemisphere at a different absolute temperature. It gives one way electromagnetic power in Watts.
    It was formalized in 1911 and agreed upon to be correct from both a thermodynamic, and an electromagnetic standpoint. The terms inside the parentheses determines the maximum wide band “difference” in opposing “radiance”, called “brightness” at the time. The sigma is “Stefan’s
    constant”, as corrected by Boltzmann, to be in agreement with Planck’s integral, including a term for the maximum radiating solid angle from a flat surface. The epsilon is a symbol denoting a complex emissivity between the two surfaces indicating the the whole equation is only an upper limit, never to be realised in the physical. No measurement has ever exceeded this upper limit.
    There is no Stefan-Boltzmann Law, independent of what Wikipedia and William Connolley say!

  114. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Will, good summary of the SB equation. It’s looks like Tim and Trick have sulked due to me putting the on the spot about my three points. Tim demands equations and calcs as a way of evading having to respond to a logical qualitative description, so I’m putting a new post together on evaporation rates of water bodies at different altitudes (and air pressures). Lots of other factors and feedbacks come into play, so the post will also look at theoretical equations used to calculate evaporation rates and how valid they are likely to be for vastly different pressure values.

  115. Tim Folkerts says: July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm
    tallbloke says: July 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm
    “Which goes to show that ‘standard calculations’ from ‘(climatology) standard radiative theory aren’t worth the paper they are written on. “
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    “IT’S NOT CLIMATOLOGY THEORY! It is the rules for radiation that have been in physics and engineering textbooks for a century now! If you are simply going to a priori discount any science that doesn’t match your world view, there is not much more to say! What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ??
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    It is only the Climatology fantasy, that allow such things as “everything radiates” , everything “radiates proportional to T^4”, “photons do not know a destination”, “photons are emitted in every direction and deliver energy like kinetic energy bullets do”, “It is correct mathematics to ignore necessary parentheses in a tested equation, then claim the validity of opposing radiative electromagnetic flux, claimed only for the propaganda value of ‘back radiation'”. Everything radiates what, certainly not electromagnetic flux? Define what is the meaning of the term “photon”may be. What is it that allows an electromagnetic wave packet to be detached fron a generating electromagnetic field? In which direction? At what frequency? All you seem to have is nonsense, to be fed to innocent children, from a book, likely written by someone less knowledgeable in any subject than yourself!

  116. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm
    ————————————
    “IT’S NOT CLIMATOLOGY THEORY! It is the rules for radiation that have been in physics and engineering textbooks for a century now! If you are simply going to a priori discount any science that doesn’t match your world view, there is not much more to say! What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?”

    No Tim, that won’t work. It’s no good yelling. The two shell radiative model works fine as I posted on the previous thread –



    (Roger, could these images be put in thread?)

    Target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temp. Note the “vacuum out” label. Think it still works when there is gas in the target chambers? Think again….

    There is nothing wrong with radiative physics, nothing at all. But there is everything wrong with how climastrologists applied it to our convecting gas atmosphere and our deep transparent oceans. There is no way around it, 97% of climastrologists are assclowns. This was sagely predicted in Sir George Simpson’s 1938 critique of Callendars attempt to claim CO2 would cause global warming –

    “..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..”

  117. Ben Wouters says:

    tallbloke says: July 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    “Game on! Let’s calculate how long the Earth’s core and outer core could keep the bulk of the ocean at that temperature before cooling and solidifying.”

    What is your interest in calculating how long the core and outer core can maintain 100mW/m^2 through the oceanic crust before solidifying? The answer may well be in the same ballpark as the time it takes before the sun burns up.

  118. Ben Wouters says:

    Trick says: July 11, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    ” Ben 1:01pm: There isn’t enough geothermal income alone to overcome the outgo of energy radiating out to space at current temperatures, the 275K would have to fall to get in balance with geothermal income.”

    Actually from ~125 mya to ~84 mya there was more geothermal income than loss to the atmosphere and space, so the deep oceans got warmer (~18K above present temperatures).
    Since then the balance between geothermal income and loss to space has been very slightly negative, so the DEEP oceans cooled down some 18K. In that same period at least 60 times the total OHC has been added to the deep oceans (and lost to space fortunately)

    Point everybody seems to miss is that the sun warms a shallow layer of ocean (surface layer) that covers almost the entire ocean surface, and prevents the DEEP oceans from losing energy to the atmosphere. So the geothermal entering the deep oceans is trapped below the (much) warmer surface layer.
    All interaction between sun => ocean => atmosphere takes place in the upper 200-300 meters or so. Below that depth NO solar influence.

  119. Roger Clague says:

    Konrad says:
    July 12, 2014 at 9:10 am

    You quote George Simpson’s 1938 comments on Callendar, which includes:

    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.

    I can’t accept this. The lapse rate is maintained by radiation and re-radiation by IR active gases ( GHG’s ).Convection and wind are to slow to to able to continuously and evenly distribute the energy in the atmosphere.

  120. Konrad says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    July 12, 2014 at 10:36 am
    ———————————–
    “Point everybody seems to miss is that the sun warms a shallow layer of ocean….”

    Nope, not missed. The bulk of our oceans will remain unfrozen until the nuclear fuel that keeps our planet molten runs out.

    A lot can happen between now and then.

    I for one pre-emptivly welcome our new insect overlords…

  121. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 12, 2014 at 7:59 am
    ———————————
    “ Tim demands equations and calcs as a way of evading having to respond to a logical qualitative description”

    Go back an look at Tim’s fist-bitting mistake regarding “planet aluminium”. I said for 0.05 emissivity and 240 w/m2 average solar radiation the surface would be at 266C. Tim went and claimed I’d used IR emissivity of 0.05 but SW absorption of 1 to get to that figure. (if that were the case, planet aluminium would have exploded just like planet baggie)

    That just about wraps it up for Tim’s “physicist” claims.

    Just about? Totally blew it when he went back and tried to patch up with “529K not 539K” (it’s not the lies you initially tell, but the lies to cover up the previous lies that get you.)

    If Tim is a physicist then I’m the Bolivian navy on manoeuvres in the south pacific…

    “so I’m putting a new post together on evaporation rates of water bodies at different altitudes..”

    Looking forward to this. The easy disproof of AGW is if this –

    – is destroyed due to steam over-pressure when conducted at 6000m in the Atacama desert. Great IR astronomy location. Not enough DWLWIR to keep that pond from freezing solid according to Tim’s “calcs” 😉

  122. Konrad says:

    Roger Clague says:
    July 12, 2014 at 10:48 am
    ———————————-
    Roger this is the second time you made a concerted attempt to support the radiative theory of atmospheric temperature by claiming that lapse rate is due to radiative issues not speed of vertical circulation across a pressure gradient.

    Want to go for a third?

    I have identified almost all current sleepers at WUWT. Think.

  123. Will Janoschka says:

    tallbloke says: July 12, 2014 at 7:59 am

    “Thanks Will, good summary of the SB equation. It’s looks like Tim and Trick have sulked due to me putting the on the spot about my three points. Tim demands equations and calcs as a way of evading having to respond to a logical qualitative description, so I’m putting a new post together on evaporation rates of water bodies at different altitudes (and air pressures). Lots of other factors and feedbacks come into play, so the post will also look at theoretical equations used to calculate evaporation rates and how valid they are likely to be for vastly different pressure values.”

    Roger,
    Could you please state why you want to calculate evaporation rates? That can be interesting in it self, but has nothing to do with any perceived warming! That S-B equation gives the alarmists a correct calculated mimimum temperature of 255K, if all assumptions are correct. However, our moon, has no atmosphere so this would be the “minimum” temperature for the Moon to shed the same solar irradiance, It is much colder, so must be increasing in temperature to possilibly shed that irradiance! –It is not increasing in temperature–! So much for any climate clown calculations. On the other hand the Earth’s atmosphere with variable water vapor and variable cloud cover can adjust both input solar power, and radiative exitance. The S-B equation is a valid “check” on the in and out and gives an indication that somewhere in the Earth’s atmosphere, that does all the radiating, should be a temperature of approximately 255 Kelvin. The atmosphere passes with a comfortable margin. Additional CO2 can only decrease surface temperature. Key question: What exactly have antropoids been doing that messes with the excellent water vapor thermostat? There is “no” measureable AGW of any sort, only deliberate stastical, measurement bias to cook the books.

    I should have mentioned with the WV refrigerator. The effective part is that none of the latent heat is ever thermalized (part of surface temperate). Solar flux as entropy is converted to latent heat as entropy and discarded as entropy to space. It [s never part of any sensible heat energy budget.
    The actual reduction is solar flux can be calculated as the annual precipitation, measured at one meter/ m^2, everywhere, and latent heat of evaporation of 2400 Joules/gram.

  124. Will Janoschka says:

    Konrad says: July 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    Roger Clague says: July 12, 2014 at 10:48 am
    ———————————-
    Roger this is the second time you made a concerted attempt to support the radiative theory of atmospheric temperature by claiming that lapse rate is due to radiative issues not speed of vertical circulation across a pressure gradient.

    Konrad,
    I agree that Clague is but a troll!

    For your consideration about lapse rate.
    The increase in temperature and pressure with decreasing altitude was known by all in the early 1900 including Maxwell, Planck, Boltzmann, and Lowschmidt. They all agreed/disagreed about what could be said about it, without sounding like an idiot. Since I admit being an idiot, I have no such qualms! The dry adabatic lapse rate “is” a thermostatic, isotherm and isobar, with both thermal and pressure gradiants increasing with decreasing altitude, caused by the static gravitational forces on the atmospheric gases! Huh, that sounds idiotic! Tol ya!

    The total “thermostatic” potentials, including gravity, establish the equlibrium temperatures and pressures, “tended to” in the absence of any thermodynamic process. In this case the Isos and gradiants are established by the gas laws. They provide no potential for a spontanious thermodynamic transfer.

    Wait a minute, a higher temperature gas is less dense must advect! That gas is not less dense because it also is at a higher pressure. No advection except for those damn H2O monomers with their Godawful latent heat, which are not even affected by position in a gravitational field.
    With water vapor and wind we have a different world, but the thermostatics have the same influence. To electromagnetic radiation the whole atmosphere is “in” thermodynamic equilibrium and all radiation passes through doing no work, as per Gus Kirchhoff.

  125. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 12, 2014 at 4:07 am:

    “What nonsense where did you get the phrase “The radiative heat transfer equation”? It has nothing about any mass, nor does it have anything to do with an absorptive transmissiom medium.”

    Will, it’s a good thing to actually try and understand what other people say before you attack them.

    Where do I state that the equation in question includes anything about ‘mass’. Read what I’m writing.

    “The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a calculation of the maximum possible thermal radiative power between a flat surface with area A and a larger enclosing hemisphere at a different absolute temperature.”

    I agree this is a minor point, but no. This is a radiative heat transfer situation you’re describing. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not deal with such. In a strict sense, it deals only with the temperature dependence of the radiative flux emitted by a black body, based on Planck’s law.

    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radframe/sb_tl.html

    “The Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives the total energy being emitted at all wavelengths by the blackbody (which is the area under the Planck Law curve). Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law explains the growth in the height of the curve as the temperature increases. Notice that this growth is very abrupt, since it varies as the fourth power of the temperature.”

    Once you move into the real world, where all objects are always surrounded by radiation fields, then you will have to derive a different equation. That’s what’s been done. This equaton: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4), is of course mathematically derived from this: E = s*T^4 (the actual Stefan-Boltzmann equation), by putting two of it in opposition. But physically they represent completely different situations.

    The flux emitted from a black body (in a theoretical infinite vacuum at 0 K) with a certain surface temperature WOULD be a real (heat) flux, an actual flow of energy. If, however, you put two black bodies next to each other, those two ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ fluxes are no longer ‘real’ in the sense of being separately working flows of energy*. They are both ‘reduced’ to potential fluxes, integrated parts of the radiative field spontaneously set up between the two bodies. Then only the ‘net’ of the two potential fluxes, the HEAT, is a real working flow of energy.

    * By ‘separately working flow of energy’ I mean one that is able to add to the energy content of a receiving object; this is where climate ‘science’ goes wrong. They think they can dissect the heat transfer equation above and treat each of the two ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ fluxes separately. They think in effect that you can take a radiation field, simply throw out the one ‘potential flux’ and thereby obtain the other one. Wrong! They ONLY exist together. In one integrated radiation field.

    In the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4), the only thing we’re looking for is the P/A. This is the ‘solution’ to the equation. The HEAT. The actual, real energy flow from hot to cold. It changes as soon as either T_hot or T_cold or both change. T_hot^4 or T_cold^4 do not represent radiative fluxes. Those terms are simply the temperature of the two opposing objects raised to the fourth. They are simply means to the end, mathematical stepping-stones to achieve the final answer, the only value that matters: P/A.

    This is all I’m saying. The (yes, clearly Stefan-Boltzmann-derived) radiative heat transfer equation shows us specifically that the atmosphere simply insulates the surface by being warm, by having a mass, hence a heat capacity, hence a temperature. This hasn’t got anything to do with whether or not that atmosphere contains radiatively active gases or not. It would’ve been warm with or without them.

  126. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Roger,
    Could you please state why you want to calculate evaporation rates? That can be interesting in it self, but has nothing to do with any perceived warming!

    The radiative theory proponents say that the Earth’s surface is so warm because of the composition of the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). I say it’s warm of because gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere to create a high air pressure at the surface. If there were no gravity and no air pressure the oceans would evaporate freely away into space. Without the cooling system provided by the hydrological cycle shifting latent heat from surface to space, the remainder of the atmosphere would heat and expand and be blown away by the solar wind. The Earth’s surface would then end up at the same average temperature as the Moon (around 200K).

    But if evaporation cools the ocean, why is the surface of the ocean warm at an average of around 290K? It is because the air pressure limits the rate of evaporation. The ocean absorbs solar energy. To lose as much energy as it gains and reach equilibrium it is forced by the Sun to rise in temperature to restore a sufficient rate of evaporation. The warm ocean surface also warms the near surface air above it (by conduction) and humidifies it. During the day, the air is also warmed directly by the IR end of incoming solar radiation spectrum. Because pressure increases air density, more of that incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the air near the surface.

    Evaporation rate is set by several parameters including temperature differentials, vapour pressures and air pressure. The less air pressure there is, the faster evaporation can take place, all else being equal. So I want to study this in order to quantify the contribution of air pressure to the surface temperature.

    That S-B equation gives the alarmists a correct calculated minimum temperature of 255K, if all assumptions are correct. However, our moon, has no atmosphere so this would be the “minimum” temperature for the Moon to shed the same solar irradiance, It is much colder, so must be increasing in temperature to possilibly shed that irradiance! –It is not increasing in temperature–! So much for any climate clown calculations.

    The 255K SB calculation factors in the high 0.3 albedo of the Earth (due to reflectivity of clouds).
    1365W/m^2 of solar radiation at 1AU
    Ubelievably this is converted to an energy budget solar income by treating the Earth as a permanently weakly illuminated flat disc.
    1365×0.7/4=~ 240W/m^2. This gives the 255K figure.

    But the Moon’s albedo is only 0.12 (no clouds and a dusty surface). So according to the same incorrect method:
    1365×0.9/4=~ 307W/m^2 giving an average surface temperature around the freezing point of water.

    But the DIVINER experiment aboard the Lunar Orbiter found that the average equatorial surface temperature of the Moon is only 214.5K – around 56K lower! Because the Moon’s poles are in near night permanently, the overall average surface temperature of the Moon is going to be substantially lower than 214.5K, probably nearer 200K.

    The correct way to integrate the incident radiation on the sunlit hemisphere an airless planet is given by Nikolov and Zeller in the paper they published here a couple of years ago:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
    Their calculation of the average surface temperature ended up on the low side because they underestimated the heat retention of the night side of the Moon.

  127. lgl says:

    Tallbloke

    If you and your visiting morons ever return from the desert (after 40 years?)
    here is some science
    http://virakkraft.com/Tropical%20IR%20fluxes.pptx

  128. tallbloke says:

    Hi lgl: This is one of those “All other things being equal” arguments isn’t it?

    HINT: they never are.

    So, what is it your science supposed to demonstrate to us?

    HINT: Science consists not only of theoretical model output but accompanying hypotheses, description and discussion, before reaching conclusions. I do hope this is not just a Mosher style drive-by.

    What I did find interesting about your graphical output was that the cold point in the atmosphere (at the tropopause around 18km) is around 200K. This is the true average grey-body temperature for the Moon (See above). That tells me that the cloud tops are the real ‘effective emission height’ for Earth’s radiation of energy to space. And the cloud tops do a pretty good job of it too. CO2 is along for the ride in this vast H2O driven evapo-convective refrigeration system. I think that little insight is worth a quick post.

    I already know that the objection to this insight will be that ‘since Earth must emit the same 240K to space as it recieves the EEH must be at a temperature of 255K which is at about 8.5km’. But this is just the misunderstanding of the ‘everything must be averaged so we can treat the Earth as a constantly all over illuminated flat disc’ morons.

    I have a strong hunch we’ll find that the integrated OLR from clouds tops on night side and day side will total the true ‘TOA’ insolation of 307W/m^2 minus whatever is absorbed and re-emitted from the stratosphere and all points above the tropopause and what is emitted direct from the surface through the atmospheric window.

  129. Tim Folkerts says:

    Konrad says:
    “There is nothing wrong with radiative physics, nothing at all. “

    Glad we can agree on that.

    “Looking forward to this. The easy disproof of AGW is if this –
    http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg

    I’m not sure what you are thinking, but that diagram CONFIRMS the basic principles of “the greenhouse effect”. And all of it is in accord with radiative physics. 🙂

    In particular, notice the layers of glass (that block IR) above the surface. The bottom layer of glass would not do much by itself. It will be pretty close to the temperature of the water (other than a slight insulating effect from its own thickness). (Similar to the thin layer of gas on Mars not making much difference because it is close to the surface and hence about the same temperature). The top of the glass will be just a little less than the water, and hence will radiate about as much as the water would have.

    Then there is a layer of air, which provides considerable insulation — but only minimal blocking of IR because the layer is relatively thin.

    Finally there is the top layer of glass that blocks IR. The TOP of this sheet of glass will be close to ambient temperature and a bit warmer on the bottom (again due its own thermal conductivity) . Since there is not much conduction, convection or latent heat to transfer energy between the bottom and top, there has to be a big transfer by thermal IR. To have a big transfer, the bottom sheet must be considerably warmer than the top sheet. Thus with some sunlight coming in, the bottom glass layer must warm until it is considerably warmer than the top — until the IR transfer from bottom to top is nearly the solar input power.

    The only real difference between this and the atmospheric GHE, is that the we do not have separate parts the provide the “insulation” and the “IR blocking” — both are performed by the air. This makes the analysis much more messy in many ways.

    ———————————————-

    As a question/challenge, if I could build a “solar pond” with no water that STILL got above 80 C, would you admit that the water itself (and any “suppression of evaporation”) is not the cause of the warming?

  130. Tim Folkerts says:

    PS. A solar pond can still work in the high desert. You would need another layer of glass perhaps since there is a little less DWLWIR and a lower average ambient temperature, but otherwise it will work fine because the glass is providing the DWLWIR.

  131. Tim Folkerts says:

    “I said for 0.05 emissivity and 240 w/m2 average solar radiation the surface would be at 266C. Tim went and claimed I’d used IR emissivity of 0.05 but SW absorption of 1 to get to that figure.

    Rather than continue with ad hom rebuttals, why not show the calculations that support your claim? It is not that tough.

    The equation required is P/A = εσ (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4). We are given ε = 0.05 emissivity by Konrad and we know T_cold = 2.7 K, which can be ignored. So we get

    P/A = (0.05) * (5.67e-8) * (539^4) = 240 W/m^2

    Thus the aluminum sphere at 539 K radiates 240 W/m^2. To radiate this much at steady-state, it must ABSORB this much at steady-state. Since you just said we had “240 w/m2 average solar radiation the surface”, then the only option is for ALL of the 240 W/m^2 of solar radiation to be absorbed, or a SW absorptivity of 1.

    So yes, you DID claim an emissivity of 0.05 and a SW absorptivity of 1 to get your answer — you simply didn’t understand your own calculations well enough to realize it (even after I explained it once already).

    [Reply] Tim, You still have two more points to respond to before proceeding further. Cheers – Rog

  132. Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    Will Janoschka says, July 12, 2014 at 4:07 am:
    “What nonsense where did you get the phrase “The radiative heat transfer equation”? It has nothing about any mass, nor does it have anything to do with an absorptive transmissiom medium.”
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    it’s a good thing to actually try and understand what other people say before you attack them.
    Where do I state that the equation in question includes anything about ‘mass’. Read what I’m writing.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Here verbatum:
    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
    Tim Folkerts says, July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm:
    “What about the Stephan-Boltzmann equation do you disagree with? What is incorrect about
    P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) ?”
    I thought you were a trained physicist, Tim. “P = εσA (T_hot^4 – T_cold^4)” is the general radiative heat transfer equation, not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. And you know that.

    The radiative heat transfer equation tells us specifically that what makes the atmosphere insulate out solar-heated global surface is the less-than-max temp gradient it sets up away from it. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn’t. And that’s it. None of this has anything to do with the so-called ‘GHGs’. It’s all about the mass of the atmosphere.
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    You call Tim’s correct quote of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation a “general radiative heat transfer equation”? There is no general radiative heat transfer equation! An alarmist invention. “It’s all about the mass of the atmosphere” Right there you associaite the S-B equation with mass. please read what you write.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    Will Janoschka says, July 12, 2014 at 4:07 am:
    “The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a calculation of the maximum possible thermal radiative power between a flat surface with area A and a larger enclosing hemisphere at a different absolute temperature.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    “I agree this is a minor point, but no. This is a radiative heat transfer situation you’re describing. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not deal with such. In a strict sense, it deals only with the temperature dependence of the radiative flux emitted by a black body, based on Planck’s law.”
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radframe/sb_tl.html
    “The Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives the total energy being emitted at all wavelengths by the blackbody (which is the area under the Planck Law curve). Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law explains the growth in the height of the curve as the temperature increases. Notice that this growth is very abrupt, since it varies as the fourth power of the temperature.”

    There is no radiative heat transfer, only a thermal electromagnetic flux transfer, What the absorber does with such flux is up to the absorber. S-B is only a theoretical maximum only, never physical!
    Planck’s integral deals only with “spectral radiance” a vector potential, never energy or power”

    There is no Stefan-Boltzmann Law, only an equation.
    There is no Stefan Law, only a Stefan’s constant “sigma”.
    There is no Boltzmann Law, only a Boltzmann’s constant ‘kappa”
    There is no Planck Law curve, A Planck’s integral, and a Planck’s constant “h”, no Greek.

    All of those so called “Laws” are an invention of Nuevo science alarmists and Wm. Connolley!
    None have any basis in this physical.

    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
    “Once you move into the real world, where all objects are always surrounded by radiation fields, then you will have to derive a different equation. That’s what’s been done. This equaton: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4), is of course mathematically derived from this: E = s*T^4 (the actual Stefan-Boltzmann equation), by putting two of it in opposition. But physically they represent completely different situations.”

    The actual Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a calculation of the maximum possible thermal radiative power between a flat surface with area A and a larger enclosing hemisphere at a different absolute temperature. It must have two different temperatures or no power, even to absolute zero
    (an asymptote), evaluating the contents of the parentheses to “not a number”.
    If there is anything “real”, please define it in correct scientific and philosophical terms.
    Your fake radiation fields are properly called “radiance” or “field strength vector”
    .Your “general radiative heat transfer equation” is total alarmist nosense, only for the gullible!

    To be continued…..

  133. …. continued

    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
    “The flux emitted from a black body (in a theoretical infinite vacuum at 0 K) with a certain surface temperature WOULD be a real (heat) flux, an actual flow of energy. If, however, you put two black bodies next to each other, those two ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ fluxes are no longer ‘real’ in the sense of being separately working flows of energy*. They are both ‘reduced’ to potential fluxes, integrated parts of the radiative field spontaneously set up between the two bodies. Then only the ‘net’ of the two potential fluxes, the HEAT, is a real working flow of energy.”

    This is correct, but there is no HEAT transfered, only one way electromagnetic flux!

    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
    ” By ‘separately working flow of energy’ I mean one that is able to add to the energy content of a receiving object; this is where climate ‘science’ goes wrong. They think they can dissect the heat transfer equation above and treat each of the two ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ fluxes separately. They think in effect that you can take a radiation field, simply throw out the one ‘potential flux’ and thereby obtain the other one. Wrong! They ONLY exist together. In one integrated radiation field.”

    This is correct, but there is no HEAT transfered, only one way electromagnetic flux!

    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
    “In the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4), the only thing we’re looking for is the P/A. This is the ‘solution’ to the equation. The HEAT. The actual, real energy flow from hot to cold. It changes as soon as either T_hot or T_cold or both change. T_hot^4 or T_cold^4 do not represent radiative fluxes. Those terms are simply the temperature of the two opposing objects raised to the fourth. They are simply means to the end, mathematical stepping-stones to achieve the final answer, the only value that matters: P/A.”

    This is correct, but there is no HEAT transfered only one way electromagnetic flux!

    Kristian says: July 12, 2014 at 1:19 am.
    “This is all I’m saying. The (yes, clearly Stefan-Boltzmann-derived) radiative heat transfer equation shows us specifically that the atmosphere simply insulates the surface by being warm, by having a mass, hence a heat capacity, hence a temperature. This hasn’t got anything to do with whether or not that atmosphere contains radiatively active gases or not. It would’ve been warm with or without them.”

    There is no electromagnetic insulation, only reflection, or absorption. In this lower atmosphere with little diferential “radiance” there is little electromagnetic flux ever generated. The absorptive gases in the atmosphere do not insulate, they completely replace the surface with an improved electromagnetic emitter to space!

  134. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: July 12, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    “The actual reduction is solar flux can be calculated as the annual precipitation, measured at one meter/ m^2, everywhere, and latent heat of evaporation of 2400 Joules/gram.”

    Beware! Trenberth et al made this, same, mistake. H2O undergoes a ‘change of state/phase change’ throuought the troposphere, tropopause and into the stratosphere. The most convincing example is this;

    http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/rain-doesnt-always-hit-the-ground-virga-explained/24165898

    but if you google ‘virga rain’ you can get more info on the liquid>-<gas 'phase change'.

    The 'liquid phase' for water doesn't exist in the stratosphere, but ice sublimates to vapour there.

    There's more energy involved than 'just precipitation' measured at the surface.

    Best regards, Ray.

  135. tallbloke says:

    WIll J: Right there you associaite the S-B equation with mass. please read what you write.

    Will, on my reading of what Kristian said, you have misunderstood what he wrote.
    I think he meant the warming of the surface is to do with mass, not radiation.

  136. tallbloke says: July 12, 2014 at 11:41 pm

    Hi lgl: This is one of those “All other things being equal” arguments isn’t it?

    HINT: they never are.

    So, what is it your science supposed to demonstrate to us?

    HINT: Science consists not only of theoretical model output but accompanying hypotheses, description and discussion, before reaching conclusions. I do hope this is not just a Mosher style drive-by.

    What I did find interesting about your graphical output was that the cold point in the atmosphere (at the tropopause around 18km) is around 200K. This is the true average grey-body temperature for the Moon (See above). That tells me that the cloud tops are the real ‘effective emission height’ for Earth’s radiation of energy to space. And the cloud tops do a pretty good job of it too. CO2 is along for the ride in this vast H2O driven evapo-convective refrigeration system. I think that little insight is worth a quick post.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Roger,
    All of those graphs are a calculation of the possible attenuation of atmospheric gases “if” the atmosphere was not in thermodynamic equilibrium. They are ModTran simulations using the HiTran data base. The HiTran data base was and still is constructed to calculate the attenuation
    of the amplitude modulation of some flux, not the attenuation of the flux itself. It is only the modulation that demands the atmosphere not be in equilibrium. The test modulation was always 100-300 Hz, while the atmosphere has a time constant of 8 seconds to rethermalize. I did the ground and airborne verification of that very database. It is unsuitable for purpose, claimed.

    A way of thinking of this is:
    At thermal equilibrium any absorbing molecule is “already” discarding by some means exactly the same radiative, or other flux as it is absorbing, else its temperature must be changing. There is “no” delay, there is “no” storage of energy. It is all a combined by an in and out equilibrium transfer, doing no work on any mass. Is 8 seconds fast enough? Not for 100 Hz but plenty fast enough for “daily”. All is a SCAM. The whole radiative heat transfer concept is a bust!

  137. tallbloke says: July 13, 2014 at 1:56 am

    WIll J: Right there you associate the S-B equation with mass. please read what you write.

    Will, on my reading of what Kristian said, you have misunderstood what he wrote.
    I think he meant the warming of the surface is to do with mass, not radiation.

    Roger, Thank you for your reply.
    I could read it that way also, hence the need for clarification! All Kristian replied with is alarmist quarter truths! I know, pickey pickey! It is the quarter truths that allowed this to go on for 30 years. Folk are learning, but still a lot of brainwashed nonsense out there. Painful!
    I do not mean to hijack your thread. There are many knowlegable here, that need help, including myself, in trying to be technically accurate, rather than adding to the confusion.

  138. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: July 13, 2014 at 1:56 am

    At the risk of becoming a ‘moronic geek’. Mass is a primary requirement for ‘any’ radiation!

    Without a ‘massive object’ in the scenario, there can be ‘no alteration’ to an ‘EM field’.

    An ‘EM field’ is ‘generated’ by ‘charged mass’ in motion in the first instance, thus, any considderation of EM field ‘flux’ must involve a ‘charged mass’, of some considderation, that initiates the EM field.

    ‘Photons’ are a means to ‘quantify’ flux/fluxes within the EM field, but ‘DON’T INTERACT’ with the field per se (unlike massive charged particles).

    ‘Mass’ is always in the scenario for EM flux and its changes. It’s an unwritten law/nature. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  139. Konrad says:

    lgl says:
    July 12, 2014 at 11:27 pm
    ———————————-
    “If you and your visiting morons ever return from the desert (after 40 years?)
    here is some science”

    The atmosphere absorbs and emits IR? This is news?

    Perhaps you could get back to us when you have discovered the role of radiative subsidence in tropospheric convective circulation or something useful like that….

  140. suricat says:

    Will, I share your grief. I spent months arguing with Tom Vonk on the, now deleted, Climate Audit forum that the troposphere was not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but does exhibit thermal equilibrium. This is important. Perhaps I’ll go into this if you show interest, but it’s late for me now.

    Best regards, Ray.

  141. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: July 12, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    “The actual reduction is solar flux can be calculated as the annual precipitation, measured at one meter/ m^2, everywhere, and latent heat of evaporation of 2400 Joules/gram.”

    Beware! Trenberth et al made this, same, mistake. H2O undergoes a ‘change of state/phase change’ throuought the troposphere, tropopause and into the stratosphere. The most convincing example is this;
    http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/rain-doesnt-always-hit-the-ground-virga-explained/24165898
    but if you google ‘virga rain’ you can get more info on the liquid>-<gas 'phase change'.
    The 'liquid phase' for water doesn't exist in the stratosphere, but ice sublimates to vapour there.
    There's more energy involved than 'just precipitation' measured at the surface.
    Best regards, Ray.

    Ray, Thank you, I agree. I've flown beneath clouds.
    My approximation of annual latent heat energy, was not even to get to the correct ballpark, but rather to the correct country. The alarmists do not even have maps.
    Annual precipitation is measured! If there a better approximation for this type of Solar "flux" that never gets close to the surface, please let me know. That was my "current guess".

    Perhaps you can answer? With water evaporation, typically the expansion is by 1000 with an energy input greater than 2000 Joules/gm. How much energy to expand by 500 to water vapor dimers, more dense than monomers, and hardly advecting at all. Surface wind now, is a different world! Are 2(H2O) thingies transmissive at 8-14 microns? Why does "sea state" matter so mutch?
    Konrad thought leaves were hard!
    Thanks, -will-

  142. suricat says: July 13, 2014 at 3:41 am

    Will, I share your grief. I spent months arguing with Tom Vonk on the, now deleted, Climate Audit forum that the troposphere was not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but does exhibit thermal equilibrium. This is important. Perhaps I’ll go into this if you show interest, but it’s late for me now.

    Best regards, Ray.

    Ray, Thank you. The troposphere is way to violent for any actual thermodynamic equilibrium, even for milliseconds. Consider Kirchoff’s “radiative thermodynamic equilibrium”, as applied here in this atmosphere. Radiative energy transfer, like gravitational energy transfer is so weak that “everthin”, is always in equilibrium, there can be no work done to change anything. Gravity and electromagnetic radiation are only spectators, to this Earth’s exciting weather. The whole atmosphere is always in “radiative equilibrium”, as surface radiative flux does no work nor changes “sensible heat or temperature”, anywhere in this atmosphere.

    Ray, I am always interested in learning, but not to the extent that I cannot be content with not knowing. Knowing is soooo boring! Like vultures on a pole, patience my ass, I must go kill something and feed.
    Roger, Thank you for this forum, please keep insisting and encouraging politeness, while understanding the necessity of strong opinion.
    Earthlings are not like cows, try to think like Roaches!

    Can anyone tell me what Global average temperature may mean?
    Is that something like the Global average flavor of spices?
    Do even stastical trends in such, have any meaning?
    Spend lots to correct the adverse trend in flavor of weeds, like Oregano? Think of the Children!!!
    How much has already been spent? Stupid earthlings….
    Thanks,-will-

  143. suricat says: July 13, 2014 at 3:15 am

    “At the risk of becoming a ‘moronic geek’. Mass is a primary requirement for ‘any’ radiation!
    Without a ‘massive object’ in the scenario, there can be ‘no alteration’ to an ‘EM field’.”
    Best regards, Ray.

    Ray, it is getting late, and tipsy!
    Mass is required for any thermally generated electromagnetic flux as only mass has “temperature”
    The thermal mass “temperature” generates a proper EM field, never any radiation or flux. The release of some wave packet into free space requires that that mass supply sufficient energy at that same temperature over the interval of the packet release. After release that packet has energy and direction, but is now free from any generating electromagnet field, mass, or other energy. It is a wave or wavelet, with a particular value of “action”, never a particle!

    The so called “photon” has no energy, but only mediates the release of the packet in the proper direction. This photon prevents that release from the earth in the direction of a higher field strength, like the Sun, even though the Sun is not in that direction, now but will be in that direction at later arrival of that energy should that packet be released in that direction, which it is not, as that damnable deciding photon has zero proper time. Other generated forms of electromagnetic flux, such as that generated by a different electromagnetic flux, need no mass, only energy.
    I need another drink!! More later if you are interested!
    -will-

  144. Bob_FJ says:

    Rog,

    Sorry for being away for a long time and this has to be a quickie.
    I see that Tim Folkerts is still exercising his divergent thinking…..Huge plastic bags of water covering the moon eh? But cuboidal rather than spheroidal I guess he means…..Hmmm…. momentarily interesting.
    I can’t remember where now, but feel it was about three years ago, that I had an exchange with him about the fact that EMR has some peculiar behaviours which make it very different from HEAT, (regardless of the classical engineering or the fairly recent very different crimatologist’s/physicist’s definition of HEAT…… but putting aside that which is commonly understood at the molecular KE definition level).
    At the photon level of EMR consideration he raised an analogy to argue the logic that photons could be compared with water droplets spraying from a fire sprinkler system in a large warehouse that although emanating in a nominally hemi-spherically isotropic fashion all ended up going down normal to the floor surface.
    I have a worrying memory that he teaches his physics. I hope it is not true!

    Bob Fernley-Jones

    PS Regards and Pls note my new email address

  145. Bob_FJ says:
    July 13, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Rog,
    Sorry for being away for a long time and this has to be a quickie.
    I see that Tim Folkerts is still exercising his divergent thinking…..Huge plastic bags of water covering the moon eh? But cuboidal rather than spheroidal I guess he means…..Hmmm…. momentarily interesting.
    I can’t remember where now, but feel it was about three years ago, that I had an exchange with him about the fact that EMR has some peculiar behaviours which make it very different from HEAT, (regardless of the classical engineering or the fairly recent very different crimatologist’s/physicist’s definition of HEAT…… but putting aside that which is commonly understood at the molecular KE definition level).
    At the photon level of EMR consideration he raised an analogy to argue the logic that photons could be compared with water droplets spraying from a fire sprinkler system in a large warehouse that although emanating in a nominally hemi-spherically isotropic fashion all ended up going down normal to the floor surface.
    I have a worrying memory that he teaches his physics. I hope it is not true!

    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Bob,
    Your coherent thinking is needed is needed right here, right now! I cannot do that. I must bounce from a wall to some other non-orthogonal new wall. Your fears are correct. Tim Folkerts now teaches his brand of crap, at a State University! Why do we not think of the children?
    Thank you., -will-

  146. lgl says:

    Tallbloke

    “This is one of those “All other things being equal” arguments isn’t it?”
    Yes, that is usually a good starting point.

    My ppt only told half the story, sufficient to debunk only half the junk being peddled here, so I have added the other half of the story. It is supposed to demonstrate (or visualize) that science (here mostly represented by Tim) is correct.
    http://virakkraft.com/Tropical%20IR%20fluxes.pptx

    I have almost given up discussing. It always ends in a flow of red herrings, strawmen, unscientific nonsense. But I am willing to try a new rule; one topic one person, meaning I will ignore all other arguments and divertions.

  147. lgl says: July 13, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Tallbloke

    My ppt only told half the story, sufficient to debunk only half the junk being peddled here, so I have added the other half of the story. It is supposed to demonstrate (or visualize) that science (here mostly represented by Tim) is correct.
    http://virakkraft.com/Tropical%20IR%20fluxes.pptx

    I have almost given up discussing. It always ends in a flow of red herrings, strawmen, unscientific nonsense. But I am willing to try a new rule; one topic one person, meaning I will ignore all other arguments and divertions.
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    To demonstrate that you are not a R.G. Brown BOT please answer: in 25 words or less!
    1)How does it feel to be ignored by all that do not agree with you:
    2)If others do not accept your POV, do you get depressed?
    3)Can you describe something that may change your POV!

    All earthlings, puppies, microbes, and roaches could answer quickly demonstrating ” not a BOT”

    What is your one topic, Who is your one verifiable person? No need to ignore anything, BOT.

  148. lgl says:

    Will
    Using my new rule, right now the one person is tallbloke. I will get back to you later.

  149. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Thanks for the additional presentation.

    My ppt only told half the story, sufficient to debunk only half the junk being peddled here

    Actually, your ppt doesn’t tell a story at all. Like I said, science consists of more than model output. It consists of hypothesis and discussion illustrated by data and models. Also, calling other peoples discussion and hypotheses “junk” without being specific and providing counterargument is poor etiquette. I’m happy to respect your right not to discuss other peoples contributions, but I’d appreciate it if you’d respect their right not to have their ideas dismissed as “junk” when you’re not going to support the assertion with evidence and counterargument.

    It is supposed to demonstrate (or visualize) that science (here mostly represented by Tim) is correct.

    The problem with that is that your presentation is only looking at radiation, whereas the science of the Earth’s energy flows involves a lot more than just radiation.

    There are two points I’d appreciate a response to:

    1) I don’t have any issue with the model’s reasonably faithful reproduction of atmospheric radiation levels, but measurement or modelled estimation of radiation tells us nothing about the other physical processes which give rise to the radiation profile of the lower troposphere, where those other processes dominate energy distribution and flow. As I’ve pointed out to Tim (though he seems reluctant to respond to the point), just because radiation levels can be measured and modelled, doesn’t mean they are the cause of anything. They might just as easily be an effect of other things. Your ppt is silent on this issue.

    2) My contention is that longwave radiation is incapable of heating the ocean, and Solar shortwave generated energy has a far more difficult task escaping from the ocean than it has from the atmosphere once emitted from the ocean in the form of latent heat, longwave radiation and convection. This resistance to the flow of energy is what makes the ocean warm, because it is forced to rise in temperature at the surface until it is able to overcome the difficulty is has shedding energy. For sure the near surface atmosphere plays a role by limiting evaporation (because it exerts pressure and the ocean makes it humid) and creating a dense insulating blanket (which is warmed by the ocean and Sun, reducing the temperature differential). But the radiation levels in the lower atmosphere are almost entirely an outcome of these other physical processes and qualities, not the cause of the surface temperature.

  150. Konrad says:

    lgl says:
    July 13, 2014 at 11:06 am
    ————————————
    Oh for goodness sake! You are using Modtran!

    Modtran is an IR opacity program developed for work on IR guided missiles. It’s static atmosphere stuff. Totally pointless for atmospheric temperature prediction without the addition of computational fluid dynamics. You know, CFD, the thing GCMs are totally incapable of doing in the vertical dimension?

    There is only one thing your little PowerPoint demonstrates. AGW believers can’t cope with basic fluid dynamics. Finding your Gluteus maximus even with google maps and a torch would likely be a challenge…

  151. lgl says: July 13, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Will Using my new rule, right now the one person is tallbloke. I will get back to you later.

    OK, Roger is nice and affable!

    For you however BOT!!!
    Please demonstrate that you are not a R.G. Brown BOT. Please answer: in 25 words or less!
    1)How does it feel to be ignored by all that do not agree with you:
    2)If others do not accept your POV, do you get depressed?
    3)Can you describe something that may change your POV!

    All earthlings, puppies, microbes, and roaches could answer quickly demonstrating ” not a BOT”

  152. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Will and Konrad’s responses are a nice demonstration of the reaction you cause by dismissing people’s ideas as “junk” without backing up the assertion with reason and argument.

    The reason I’m ‘affable’ is to facilitate productive discussion between people with strongly held views. However, my ‘affability’ has limits, and when driven beyond them, I tend to adopt a steely resistance to the disruption of scientific debate at this venue (affably named tallbloke’s talkshop).

    So gents, please let us not become agitated. This is easily resolved by lgl withdrawing his unsupported “junk” comment, and/or Will and Konrad resting content with their ripostes and permitting me to have the conversation with lgl while also engaging with others.

    Tim and Trick are currently on delayed moderation while they’re deciding whether or not to address my three points properly, since I don’t take kindly to obfuscation, prevarication, evasion or squirrel pointing either.

    However, I have now released 3 comments from Tim to Konrad made from 12.45 am for him to get his teeth into while I sort out lgl’s less than encompassing ppt presentations.

  153. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 13, 2014 at 3:04 am:

    “All Kristian replied with is alarmist quarter truths! I know, pickey pickey! It is the quarter truths that allowed this to go on for 30 years. Folk are learning, but still a lot of brainwashed nonsense out there. Painful!”

    Thanks. You’re an insightful guy, Will.

  154. tallbloke says:

    Kristian, I appreciate your forbearance. Will, dial it down a notch please.

  155. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “just because radiation levels can be measured and modelled, doesn’t mean they are the cause of anything”

    You can’t accept the measurements and at the same time claim the absorbed radiation will not warm the ocean. So my first question must be; Do you accept that the modtran model runs I have selected are close to reality?

  156. Konrad says: July 13, 2014 at 12:25 pm
    lgl says: July 13, 2014 at 11:06 am
    ————————————
    “Oh for goodness sake! You are using Modtran!”
    “Modtran is an IR opacity program developed for work on IR guided missiles. It’s static atmosphere stuff. Totally pointless for atmospheric temperature prediction without the addition of computational fluid dynamics. You know, CFD, the thing GCMs are totally incapable of doing in the vertical dimension?”

    Konrad, please, I did the verification from 45 killofeet to 15 kilofeet at at a distance of 400 miles. the HiTran database is as good as you will ever get, back then!
    The Generals were leary! Are you sure, if we cannot see them, they cannot see us? YES!
    “That changes the whole battle plan”. We were not hung for treason!

    The HiTran database is pristine! In no way can you ever use that, to establish gross radiative energy transfer between two locations anywhere. as the Clowns now claim. The database was never intended to have such data. Still today, can you detect that little fucker over yonder? Yes, sir! “which one do you want”?

  157. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 13, 2014 at 1:24 am:

    “There is no radiative heat transfer, only a thermal electromagnetic flux transfer, What the absorber does with such flux is up to the absorber.”

    It is not about what the absorber ‘does’ with such a flux, Will. What kind of world are you living in? Do you even know what HEAT is? How it’s physically defined? This bizarre statement of yours clearly points towards a NO.

  158. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 13, 2014 at 12:40 pm
    “So gents, please let us not become agitated. This is easily resolved by lgl withdrawing his unsupported “junk” comment, and/or Will and Konrad resting content with their ripostes and permitting me to have the conversation with lgl while also engaging with others.”

    No problem. Lgl is run of the mill believer. Identifying and tripping up the few remaining sleepers at WUWT is more my game 😉

    “Tim and Trick are currently on delayed moderation while they’re deciding whether or not to address my three points properly, since I don’t take kindly to obfuscation, prevarication, evasion or squirrel pointing either.”

    Slight problem. Yes I know, certain players will try to “restart the clock” by repeating old refuted claims every new thread. In the “now” it is frustrating, but it is worth looking at the long game. What is written here is not just for us, but for future readers. They will be going back over every thread. They will see all the tactics of the AGW propagandists laid bare.

    An example from politics – “the left want the right silenced. The right want the left to keep talking on record.”

    It is for the best that those promoting AGW get the chance to keep pushing their propaganda and pseudo science on the permanent Internet record.

  159. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: Appreciate what you’re saying, but there are more than enough sites where the debate has been argued to a standstill by those prevarication tactics for the sociologists of science to pore over in the coming decades. I want to make some progress in an environment where potentially valuable insights are not lost in the deluge of frequently repeated and tired old talking points.

    By the way, did you spot my edit saying I’ve released 3 comments from Tim to you at 12.45am?

  160. tallbloke says: July 13, 2014 at 1:16 pm
    Kristian, I appreciate your forbearance. Will, dial it down a notch please.
    I will try! A 10 meter Caribbean sailing craft, with hot and cold running women may make me do accurate SST. instead of bugging your blog, Again I will try, your blog now has the radicals!

  161. tallbloke says:

    lgl: You can’t accept the measurements and at the same time claim the absorbed radiation will not warm the ocean. So my first question must be; Do you accept that the modtran model runs I have selected are close to reality?

    Don’t forget you selected ‘Tropical’. Globally, the oceans are emitting ~390W/m^2 and ‘absorbing’ (in the top few um) only ~330W/m^2. The net radiation balance is negative. Radiation is helping to cool the oceans, not warm them.

    To summarise:
    Radiation is cooling the ocean
    Evaporation is cooling the ocean
    Convection is cooling the ocean
    Conduction is cooling the ocean

    The Sun is warming the ocean

    The mass of the atmosphere under gravity is slowing the energy loss of the ocean
    The opacity of the atmosphere is a function primarily of evaporation from the ocean
    Cloud albedo is primarily a function of the evaporation from the ocean
    Net cloud radiative forcing is negative – cooling the surface

    Do you disagree with any of these statements?

  162. tallbloke says:

    Will: radical particles making waves (with or without hot and cold running chambermaids) are welcome. 😉

    As are the defenders of climate science orthodoxy, provided they debate in good faith.

  163. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “Radiation is helping to cool the oceans, not warm them.”

    Take a look at my slide 4. Does it show that if you remove the ghgs the ocean will warm?
    What will happen to the IR fluxes in that scenario in your opinion?

  164. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Yes, I disagree with “Radiation is cooling the ocean” The upward IR is cooling the ocean, the downward is warming it.

  165. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The way debate works is I answer your questions and you answer mine. This is not an interrogation but the free exchange of ideas where people listen and consider/respond as well as argue for their own position.

    So, do you disagree with any of my statements added to my comment above?

    Once we’ve established how things are in the real world, we’ll move to your toy planet where GHG’s can be removed, but clouds can still exist.

  166. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Yes, I disagree with “Radiation is cooling the ocean” The upward IR is cooling the ocean, the downward is warming it.

    But there’s more upward than downward LW, so the net effect of LW radiation is cooling, not warming. I don’t see how you can escape that conclusion. But feel free to try. 🙂

    If that was the only statement you disagreed with, we’re already making good progress I think.

  167. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Your generous uncle in America is putting 150 £ into you bank account each month. You put in 300 and your wife withdraws 450 each month. The net result of you and your wifes action is to decrease the balance, but what would happen if you stopped your contribution but could not stop your wife?

  168. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Your analogy is inadequate because it doesn’t account for the deposits made by father Sun or withdawals made by cousin evaporation or sister convection. So lets discuss physics, not economics. ‘Where’s the missing shilling’ arguments are unedifying.

  169. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    … and the answer is your wife will see the balance drop and will be smart enough to reduce the withdrawal until the balance does not drop anymore, ie. 150 £

  170. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Those other deposits and withdrawls are just other pluses and minuses in the equation. You can add as many you like as long as the net is zero. And you can remove any of the positive, the result will always be a cooling of the surface (or your economy). Do you really not understand this?

  171. tallbloke says:

    lgl: You’ve answered your own question, so can we get back to physics now please.

    I asked you to comment on two points far above. Are you ready yet?

  172. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “2) My contention is that longwave radiation is incapable of heating the ocean”

    This is simply wrong. Again slide 4. What will happen?

  173. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    The important point is the ghgs are generating downward IR but they are not the ones generating the upward IR from the surface, so removing them you only remove the positive contribution, not the negative.

  174. tallbloke says: July 13, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Will: radical particles making waves (with or without hot and cold running chambermaids) are welcome. 😉
    I was just having an inquiry, of my and your investment in a 10 meter craft, emitting no hydrocarbons, except fot the activity of chambermaids. The selling point is the precise SST at this locale, as measured by cavorting swiming ladies with precise mercury glass thermometers, traceable to NIST. NO radiometric BS whatsoever! This has never been done before! Just imagine the value, if all the satellites “must” re-calibrate on this precise SST.

    OTOH please define “in good faith”, it does not parse here.?

  175. Kristian says:

    Earth’s surface doesn’t emit its specific radiative heat flux (globally ~50-60 W/m^2) up into the air above because this air happens to contain special gas molecules capable of absorbing (some of) it. The mean radiative heat flux emitted from Earth’s surface isn’t what it is because the radiative properties of the so-called ‘GHGs’ in the atmosphere make it so.

    Take a look once again at the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4).

    The mean radiative heat flux emitted from the global surface of the Earth is much less than the S-B potential flux of a 289K black body in a vacuum at 0 K, simply because the atmosphere isn’t that vacuum at 0 K. It is a medium in direct thermal contact with the surface holding a temperature fairly close to that of the surface.

    P/A (the radiative heat flux from surface UP) = es*(T_sfc^4 – T_air^4).

    It is the smallish TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE between surface and air (+ the emissivity of the surface), not the ‘back radiation’ from the so-called ‘GHGs’, that makes the mean radiative heat flux from Earth’s global surface so much smaller than the theoretical BB flux of 396 W/m^2.

    That AND the fact that a lot of the energy from the Sun is removed from the surface NOT by radiation, but by conduction > convection and evaporation. There simply isn’t more energy to go around (at dynamic equilibrium) …

    A solar-heated body immersed in air held in place by gravity could thus never, under any circumstance, radiate away the ENTIRE amount of energy it absorbed from the Sun from its surface. This could never, under any circumstance, become a purely radiative situation. And this is true whether the air in question contains radiatively active gases or not.

  176. tallbloke says:

    Will: Sounds good, I could come on board with that. I sold my 16m craft some years ago though. Do you have a particular sailing boat and home port in mind?

    Good faith is not trying to avoid answering substantive points with obfuscation, evasion and distraction.

  177. Kristian says:

    lgl says, July 13, 2014 at 2:44 pm:

    “Tallbloke
    “2) My contention is that longwave radiation is incapable of heating the ocean”

    This is simply wrong. Again slide 4. What will happen?”

    lgl, any DWLWIR potential flux is simply part of the continuous energy exchange going on between surface and air. It is not a heat flux in its own right. It is not a separately working flow of energy. Only the ‘net’ flux UP is a heat flux. And only HEAT can … heat something.

    This is what Tallbloke is trying to tell you.

    It is when warmists like you try to argue that DWLWIR from the cooler air will actually be able to warm the already warmer surface that the 2nd Law is violated with a bang.

  178. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Since nearly all upward LW in absorbed wavelengths is absorbed near the surface (90% with 1km) and all downward LW is absorbed in the top few microns of the ocean, and since this flux is rapidly exchanged, I very much doubt the ocean would continue emitting so much upward if there was suddenly no downward LW.

    Kristian: Well put.

  179. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “I very much doubt the ocean would continue emitting so much upward if there was suddenly no downward LW.”
    Then you very much doubt the S-B equation. Based on what?

  180. tallbloke says:

    lgl: I don’t doubt the SB equation or the ‘radiative transfer equation’ (provided I’m not asked to accept transfer in a direction causing the manifestation of sensible heat which contravenes the 2nd law), but I do doubt their applicability to a roiling mass of atmosphere convulsed by disturbance due to the sudden removal of a basic physical quantity. The whole ‘what if we suddenly removed ghg’s’ argument is a poorly constructed red herring.

    Instead of these unphysical scenarios where we can have clouds without vapours and oceans without atmopheres, let’s consider real physics in the real world. How about discussing my 2 points?

  181. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Isn’t that what we have been doing? How can it be a red herring? The question was; Is LW warming the ocean? Then lets remove the source of the LW and see what happens? What’s your better aproach?

  182. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Your argument that the fact that the flux is upwards thus cooling the oceans doesn’t pertain because the downwelling LWIR is somehow different to the upwelling LWIR is spurious. For a start, the downwelling LWIR is half of the LWIR that was emitted by the ocean in the first place.

    The sun warms the ocean
    The ocean warms the atmosphere
    The atmosphere tries (and fails due to its pathetic heat capacity) to warm space
    The atmosphere tries (and succeeds) to slow the loss of heat from the ocean. But it does this by suppressing evaporation and blanketing the ocean with a dense insulative layer, not by chucking 330W/m^2 of LW radiation from a cooler source at it.

    Please don’t confirm you are a ‘second law denier’.

  183. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “downwelling LWIR is somehow different to the upwelling LWIR”

    I never said that. I said the source is different. The surface does not radiate because it received energy from the ghgs. If you know the temperature and emissivity of the surface you know the output. The problem with you guys is you think you can suddenly decide things like “..very much doubt the ocean would continue emitting so much upward..” There is no room for that in science. Either you accept the laws of physics with the accompanying equations or you don’t.

  184. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    … and you know very well my view is not in conflict with the second law, so please.

  185. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The laws of physics don’t allow you to ‘suddenly remove the ghg’s’ and get anything worth discussing, so if this is how you are going to try to undermine my position, the conversation is over on that front.

    It s noted that:

    You haven’t responded to the 2nd law argument despite three prompts
    You won’t respond to the point that evapo-transpiration and convection dominate tropospheric energy flows despite three prompts

    Game over. You lose.

  186. tallbloke says:

    lgl: … and you know very well my view is not in conflict with the second law, so please.

    It is if you are arguing that the 330W/m^2 downwelling is thermalised in the ocean, because then you’d be arguing that energy transfer from something cooler made something warm warmer, and Maxwell ain’t gonna have any truck with that. It is part of a flux, and the flux is upwards, cooling the ocean. It makes no difference that it is ‘from a different source’, because for one thing we can simply define the region of interest to be the ocean-atmosphere system. So if you are merely saying that the cooling of the ocean is lowed that’s fine, so long as you recognise that it’s not radiation which is causing that slowing. The radiation is the outcome of the air temperature which slows the cooling of the ocean by reducing temperature differentials, not the cause.

    Now, if you want to argue that additional co2 will make the air warmer, reducing the differential further, it’s game on, and we can argue that. Are you up for it?

  187. Kristian says: July 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    Will Janoschka says, July 13, 2014 at 1:24 am:

    “There is no radiative heat transfer, only a thermal electromagnetic flux transfer, What the absorber does with such flux is up to the absorber.”

    “It is not about what the absorber ‘does’ with such a flux, Will. What kind of world are you living in? Do you even know what HEAT is? How it’s physically defined? This bizarre statement of yours clearly points towards a NO.”

    OK Kristian, Roger asked me to back off. I will do that! I come from a electromagnetic background, Radio, TV, radar, lasers, where heat is always the enemy, get rid of it as fast as you can!.
    You ask, if I know what HEAT is? No I do not, I have learned that HEAT is the most ill defined form of energy, there is. It can be anything! Heat seems to be the wastebasket for energy, even entropy is better defined. From statistical mechanics heat is something in motion, mistakenly called kinetic energy because of that apparent motion, Brownian motion in a gas that is variable with pressure and some fool thing now called temperature. WHAT IS HEAT That kinetic has no vector momentum, so it is not Newtonian kinetic energy, it is just HEAT energy whatever that may be!

    It is not, mechanical, chemical, electrical, energy, but some perhaps some string energy.
    So what is HEAT? Temperature^4 sets a electrodynamic field potential. like a battery voltage it is only a potential. If you want some work done, you must have the through variable (current a fake invention times voltage (another fake invention) to produce fake Power that can do (work) fake or not. Please explain to me the term HEAT as you use it! How it’s physically defined?

    Nice communicating with you Kristian, perhaps we can learn. I have nothing to sell!

  188. tallbloke says:

    Will: Thanks, much better.

    You ask, if I know what HEAT is? No I do not, I have learned that HEAT is the most ill defined form of energy

    It’s time for those famous thermodynamicists Flanders and Swann

    Get a cuppa and listen

  189. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The surface does not radiate because it received energy from the ghgs.

    I missed this first time round. Thank you for agreeing with me. Game over, You lose. Again.

  190. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    “You won’t respond to the point that evapo-transpiration and convection dominate tropospheric energy flows despite three prompts”

    The evapo-transpiration and convection is not part of the equations describing the radiative balance at the surface, so you have no point.

    second law: there is one flux in each direction, so no, no violation. The idea that there is no flux between two bodies of the same temperature has no physical base. Temperature is not similar to a electric potential. Again, do you believe the modtran runs or not?

  191. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The evapo-transpiration and convection is not part of the equations describing the radiative balance at the surface, so you have no point.

    Then you’d be arguing that the radiative energy transfer from something cooler made something warmer even warmer, and Maxwell ain’t gonna have any truck with that. It is part of a flux, and the flux is upwards, cooling the ocean. It makes no difference that it is ‘from a different source’, because for one thing we can simply define the region of interest to be the ocean-atmosphere system. So if you are merely saying that the cooling of the ocean is restricted that’s fine, so long as you recognise that it’s not radiation which is causing that slowing. The radiation is the measurable outcome of the air temperature, set by the ocean and the dominant processes in the troposphere, which slows the cooling of the ocean by reducing temperature differentials, not the cause of that temperature.

    Now, if you want to argue that additional co2 will radiatively make the air warmer, reducing the temperature differential further, causing the ocean to be forced to rise in temperature to overcome the restriction and reach equilibrium, it’s game on, and we can argue that. Are you up for it?

  192. Kristian says:

    tallbloke says, July 13, 2014 at 5:18 pm:

    “So if you are merely saying that the cooling of the ocean is restricted that’s fine, so long as you recognise that it’s not radiation which is causing that slowing. The radiation is the measurable outcome of the air temperature which slows the cooling of the ocean by reducing temperature differentials, not the cause.”

    Now we’re really starting to get somewhere 🙂 Couldn’t agree more.

  193. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    There is no point if you can’t answer whether you believe the modtran runs or not. What will the spectra in slide 4 look like in your opinion?

  194. tallbloke says:

    Kristian: Now we’re really starting to get somewhere.

    It’ll take a while. At the moment lgl seems to think that because “The evapo-transpiration and convection is not part of the equations describing the radiative balance at the surface”, they are not the prime movers in the troposphere.

    I still haven’t managed to get him to see that just because you can theoretically infer a temperature via a radiation level via some equations tuned to fit the observations, that the radiation level is not necessarily the cause of the temperature.

  195. tallbloke says:

    lgl: There is no point if you can’t answer whether you believe the modtran runs or not.

    I believe the modtrans runs can do an acceptable job of inferring radiation levels from equations tuned to fit observations.
    I do not believe this tells us anything about causation. (And nor does anyone else with a training in assessing scientific theory).

    See what I mean Kristian?

  196. tallbloke says:

    All: I’m taking my dad out for his 85th birthday. Back later. Play nice. Or else. 😉

  197. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm:

    Will, it’s obvious that we are very much on the same side in this debate. Same goes for Konrad. I’ve had a minor quibble with him. But it’s regarding a super-hypothetical scenario, so it could never really be resolved. And it’s (actually, when it comes down to it) of very little consequence who’s right in the end.

    That aside, I think we’re starting to see the outline here of a very nice and coherent, reality-oriented description and explanation of how the Earth system works.

    I for one have long since moved away from the position I held earlier, in the discussion about the steel greenhouse, radiation and the Second Law. I now agree that in such a rigid situation, the rGHE would actually work. It’s the lab description of the GHE. The closed glass box analogy. It simply doesn’t work in the real Earth system. I have no problem admitting I was wrong on this (too eager to be in opposition).

    The one thing remaining is how the warmists think they can treat the two potential radiative fluxes making up the one real (net) heat flux, the actual flow of energy, as separately (thermodynamically) working flows of energy. This happens on a regular basis in the discussions about how the atmosphere is supposedly warming the ocean’s surface. They seem to assume they can just remove the upward component and be left with the downward one, working all by itself. They most certainly can’t. That’s when they end up violating the Second Law. You need to always keep the two potential fluxes (up and down) together. Once you separate them, you’re stepping out of the realm of physics and into the realm of that strange brand of postmodern science called (by some) ‘climastrology’.

  198. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    You can’t say modtrans runs can do an acceptable job and at the same time claim “It is part of a flux, and the flux is upwards, cooling the ocean”. From what you are writing we can deduce you do not believe there is one flux in each direction, like modtran is showing, but it would be nice to see your confirmation. This is the crucial point. If you claim one-directional flux you have to come up with a new model giving a better explanation of the obeservations than Modtran does. Looking forward to it! http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/

  199. lgl says:

    Congrats to your dad. Hope you appreciate that source of wisdom.

    Now to Will.
    2) No
    3) Evidence

    short enough?

  200. lgl says:

    Kristian

    Wow, now it’s getting interesting. Don’t you remember there is one flux in each direction in the steel greenhouse model?

  201. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Congrats to your dad. Hope you appreciate that source of wisdom.

    Thanks, and I do, he’s a water engineer with full BSc Civil Eng. He says his knees are bit creaky after a couple of miles now and he’s starting to feel old. Just starting to mind you.

  202. tallbloke says:

    lgl: If you claim one-directional flux you have to come up with a new model giving a better explanation of the obeservations than Modtran does. Looking forward to it! http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/

    Not so hard, the radiative model isn’t all that good. http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/19
    Anyway, if we let you have your two separate fluxes, can we just clarify that you don’t intend to break the 2nd law by claiming that the downward flux from a cooler place in the atmosphere is ever going to make a warmer place, the ocean, even warmer by direct radiation? i.e. at best, extra co2 is only going to slow the rate of heat loss by making the air warmer (all else being equal, and still not as warm as the ocean), thus forcing the ocean to rise to a higher temperature to overcome the restriction.

    Various people complain that this is semantic quibbling, but I disagree. It is vitally important we maintain the distinction and word our ideas carefully to avoid the “you’ve broken the 2nd law and you’re outta here!” type arguments.

  203. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Without the downward flux the ocean would have been cooler, and that is not violating the second law so forget that mantra.
    And the upward flux is not restricted by anything, it only depends on temperature and emissivity of the surface, but now I have to call it a day, to tired to study your link now.

  204. tallbloke says:

    lgl: OK, thanks for the debate. To be resumed I hope. I’m pretty busy tomorrow daytime at work and a meeting after so it’ll be later on.

  205. Tim Folkerts says:

    @ Bob_FJ July 13, 2014 at 9:20 am

    I have made many analogies over the years to make specific points. For example, covering the moon with water was an attempt to address the claim that water has some natural warming property, and if so, the moon covered with water (but no atmosphere with GHGs) would have a quite warm surface. It was Tallbloke who decided that this would be a topic for a top post. As for the spraying water analogy, you mis-remember the intent and the details, so your criticism is not germane.

  206. Tim Folkerts says:

    “at best, extra co2 is only going to slow the rate of heat loss by making the air warmer “
    Yes, that is indeed one good way of saying it. Adding more CO2 @12 km up in the atmosphere will slow the rate of heat lose from the layer at 11.9 km, making it warmer. This will slow the slow the heat loss from the layer @ 11.8 km, making *it* warmer. And so all the way down.

    The change at the very top percolates back down via the lapse rate. The warmer air at the surface slows the heat loss from the ocean, allowing the sun to warm it more than before.

  207. Kristian says:

    gl says, July 13, 2014 at 6:38 pm:

    “Kristian

    Wow, now it’s getting interesting. Don’t you remember there is one flux in each direction in the steel greenhouse model?”

    Hehe. No need for you to get any ideas. It was never about your two opposing potential radiative fluxes, lgl. It would still violate the 2nd Law to claim the ‘back radiation’ adds to the energy content of the planet to make it warmer.

    It was only ever about temperature differentials. When the outer shell absorbs energy from the inner planet, its temperature rises (just like the atmosphere) – recalling the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_planet^4 – T_shell^4).

    This is simply an example of the failed closed glass box rGHE analogy. It works in a lab, NOT in the real Earth system. And we’ve been explaining to you now for a while exactly WHY it fails. You still, however, absolutely refuse to open yours eyes and ears to it. That’s why I’ve given up ‘discussing’ anything at all with you, lgl. It’s a waste of time. Kudos to Tallbloke for his patience in that regard …

  208. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, July 14, 2014 at 1:06 am:

    “Adding more CO2 @12 km up in the atmosphere will slow the rate of heat lose from the layer at 11.9 km, making it warmer. This will slow the slow the heat loss from the layer @ 11.8 km, making *it* warmer. And so all the way down.

    The change at the very top percolates back down via the lapse rate. The warmer air at the surface slows the heat loss from the ocean, allowing the sun to warm it more than before.”

    Tim, thanks for that! Really goes to show how this purely theoretical hypothesis of yours is completely detached from reality. Good thing you admit it.

  209. Bob_FJ says:

    Will Janoschka,
    Thank you for your interest in my comment above. I’ve not yet taken-in the full extent of this thread, or the preceding one driving it, but note the discussion around EMR and its sometimes mistaken relativity to HEAT transfer (in the classic engineering context and also some recent corruptions in
    definition of HEAT in other fields)
    Below is an interesting graphic comparing the Plankies for both Sun and Earth temperatures with necessarily adjusted relative scaling. Putting aside the angular line of sight twixt Earth and Sun and accuracy of the graphic overlaps, some might argue that the Earth is heating the Sun. (Absorption bands/windows are not considered)

    Source of the graphic follows:

    http://mcensustainableenergy.pbworks.com/w/page/20638192/The%20Solar%20Resource

  210. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Yes we can go on for ever repeating the same arguments… but no marathon today. I didn’t find one single radiation spectrum in that paper. GHE is about radiation, not phase changes at the tropopause.

  211. Arfur Bryant says:

    Rog,

    Now that you and lgl have finished, can you maybe explain something to me about his ppt slides?

    Slide 2-4.

    We started with 347.9 W/m2
    Then went to 340.7 without CO2
    Then went to 36.0 with no water vapour either.

    So what – according to the model – is providing the remaining 36 W/m2?

    Because whatever it is, it seems a large figure compared to – say – doubling CO2, which only adds 1.6 W/m2

    And what does ‘Water Vapour Scale’ mean? Why is it the same figure at MSL and 70km up?

    Genuinely curious as to what people put into the models…

  212. tallbloke says:

    lgl: That’s where we diverge. There are half a dozen or more strongly evidenced reasons why the Earth’s surface is warmer than the moons, and radiative effects are only one of them.

  213. lgl says:

    Kristian
    Can’t give up discussing with me after all, can you 🙂
    Yes, the steel GH model is a purely radiative model, never intended to model the Earth system, but it is useful to debunk your one-directional flux idea, and it does that very well, you just don’t see it.
    The strange thing is, now both you and tallbloke accept the results from the steel GH model but both of you still clinging to the one-directional flux non… ups! …idea.

  214. Kristian says:

    I have a problem understanding why people seem to think the concept of ‘heat’ is so difficult or confusing. Will Janoschka calls it ‘ill-defined’. It’s not ill-defined at all. The way I see it, it is really very straightforward indeed and very helpful to the whole AGW/GHE debate.

    If you know what ‘heat’ really is and how it flows through the Earth system, you’re a long way towards getting how the Earth’s climate actually works. The AGW movement does its best to obfuscate the concept of ‘heat’, simply because they know that if you only get that, you will see the central flaw in their hypothetized mechanism(s) at once.

    HEAT is simply that energy which is transferred from a hot to a cold object, or from a hot object to its cold surroundings, as a result of the difference in temperatures. Same temperature, no heat transfer.

    HEAT is not some special form of energy. It is any energy transferred between thermodynamic systems as a result of a temperature difference. Heat is a flow of energy working towards equalizing the temperature of two opposing systems. It only operates whenever there is a difference, and then it comes about spontaneously, always moving DOWN the potential ladder, from high to low potential. Just like an electric current.

    Looking only at the posited two opposing EMR hemifluxes in a radiative ‘heat’ transfer situation and treating them both as separate flows of energy (they’re NOT) is doing no good to the understanding of what’s really going on. It will always only confuse the matter.

    Theoretically it’s fine to keep them – they make calculating the ‘heat’ a relatively uncomplicated task. But thereby thinking they’re actual fluxes of energy in their own right represents a complete miscontrual of reality. A radiation field can’t be split into two or more separate fluxes. Any sane person would see that.

  215. Kristian says:

    lgl says, July 14, 2014 at 9:46 am:

    “Kristian
    Can’t give up discussing with me after all, can you :-)”

    Oh, yes I can.

  216. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Maybe, but they are very minor to the radiative effects. For instance, I agree the difference in moist adiabat and dry adiabat will increase the surface temperature slightly but I cant see how it can be any larger than the latent heat removed from the surface, but heck now I’m violating my one topic at a time rule. Work to do (even during holidays), but unfortunately this time stealing keyboard will drag me back…

  217. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    ———————————
    “By the way, did you spot my edit saying I’ve released 3 comments from Tim to you at 12.45am?”

    Roger, I have just got back to this suddenly lengthen thread. Thank you for letting Tim’s comments through. It allows me to say something important –

    When Tim said I’d used the wrong equation, Tim was very right and I was very wrong. (doubly wrong for jumping into ad hom without double checking)

    The temperature of planet aluminium without an atmosphere would not be 539K as I claimed. Nor would it be the lesser figure 529 Tim suggested. It appears to be lower again.

    I will follow this up with a direct response to Tim.

  218. Konrad says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    July 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    ———————————
    “Konrad, please, I did the verification from 45 killofeet to 15 kilofeet at at a distance of 400 miles. the HiTran database is as good as you will ever get, back then!”

    Will, are you saying you have worked on thermal detection systems?

  219. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 13, 2014 at 1:19 am
    ———————————–
    “So yes, you DID claim an emissivity of 0.05 and a SW absorptivity of 1 to get your answer — you simply didn’t understand your own calculations well enough to realize it”

    Tim, I have gone back and checked.

    You were right and I was wrong. The equation I used did indeed treat absorption as 1. My knee-jerk ad hom response was unwarranted.

    I knew that polished aluminium in full sun at 1AU can hit 426C. I got a figure of 266 for a rotating sphere and didn’t double check. Assume makes…

    I have gone back and dug out some old links for spacecraft thermal control. This one is quite useful for basic answers – http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf

    I was also wrong assuming equal emissivity/absorption for polished aluminium. It turns out that aluminium is another of those annoying selective surfaces. It has an absorption to emission ratio of around 10 to 1. (a bit like the oceans 😉 )

    On that basis the average surface temp for “Planet Aluminium” should not be 539K or 529K, it should be lower, down around 453K (for an average of 240 w/m2 incident).

    So the question now is will this 180C surface temp be lowered by the addition of a pure methane atmosphere?

    I say yes, and that atmosphere would appear to be to be radiating at 255K when viewed from space.

    PS. If I can admit error, can you agree that planet baggie exploded? I’m sure I felt a great disturbance in the force, like a million little goldfish souls crying out then suddenly silenced…

  220. Konrad says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 13, 2014 at 12:45 am
    ——————————–
    Tim Folkerts says:
    July 13, 2014 at 1:18 am
    ——————————–
    “notice the layers of glass (that block IR) above the surface. …Finally there is the top layer of glass that blocks IR.”

    Tim, the old solar pond diagram is clearly marked “glass or plastic”. I have shown you photos of my replication of the experiment using IR transparent films. I have also shown you other experiments where I am using air cooled glass shields to block IR. I am well aware that glass is IR opaque. That is not the point of the solar pond experiment.

    “As a question/challenge, if I could build a “solar pond” with no water that STILL got above 80 C, would you admit that the water itself (and any “suppression of evaporation”) is not the cause of the warming?”

    Ah! Well ahead of you. Did those experiments years ago looking into the N&Z hypothesis –

    Yes, an air insulated target plate can get above 80C, but unlike water, if only illuminated by an average 240 w/m2 and devoid of DWLWIR, it will only have an average temp of 255K.

  221. tallbloke says:

    Konrad:” unlike water, if only illuminated by an average 240 w/m2 and devoid of DWLWIR, it will only have an average temp of 255K.”

    Also unlike water, it won’t stay warm long after sundown with its pathetic heat capacity.

  222. tallbloke says:

    lgl: The factors are not easy to disentangle and quantify, but I’ll let you know when we’ve made progress with that. Pressure effect is bigger than radiative though. Poleward spread of energy by ocean and bulk atmosphere is too.

  223. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 14, 2014 at 12:06 pm
    ———————————
    “Also unlike water, it won’t stay warm long after sundown with its pathetic heat capacity.”

    That is very much the point. There are several factors in play as to why the sun can heat water so well. The first is emissivity less than absorption. (like I found about polished metals) The second is radiation absorption at depth. The third is heat capacity and slow speed of internal non-radiative transport.

    These second two points become serious factors for intermittent solar illumination circumstances. It is worth remembering that solar ponds take time to reach full operating temperature and the number of days depends on their size.

  224. Ben Wouters says:

    lgl says: July 14, 2014 at 10:03 am

    “For instance, I agree the difference in moist adiabat and dry adiabat will increase the surface temperature slightly”

    Assuming that with moist and dry adiabat you mean the Saturated and Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rates (SALR and DALR), would you explain how the changing temperature vs altitude of an ADIABATICALLY rising or sinking air mass within the static atmosphere can have any influence on the surrounding atmosphere, let alone the surface temperature?

  225. Will Janoschka says:

    Konrad says: July 14, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Will Janoschka says:July 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    ———————————
    “Konrad, please, I did the verification from 45 killofeet to 15 kilofeet at at a distance of 400 miles. the HiTran database is as good as you will ever get, back then!”

    Will, are you saying you have worked on thermal detection systems?

    Yes, one could say that. Good luck with your sea evaporation rates. Perhaps you might consider that “process” more carfully. The H2O gas monomers at stp haves 1000 x the volume of the liquid at the same temperature, and takes 2400 Joules/gm of energy to get to that state. What is in between? What is that stuff just above the sea surface? At what wavelengths does the stuff absorb, transmit, reflect? Leaves are not hard!!

  226. Will Janoschka says:

    Bob_FJ says: July 14, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Will Janoschka,
    Thank you for your interest in my comment above.

    Thank you for the graph. Please notice the scaling factor for the Sun. The actual Planck spectrial radiance curves never overlap. a lowet temperature body has lower spectral radiance at every frequency. the Earth emitts no thermal electromagnetic flux in the direction of the Sun.

  227. lgl says:

    Ben
    Well, that was just a thought, could very well be wrong, but I’m imagining air rising in the moist tropics and sinking back to surface in the dry Sahara. Wouldn’t the temp of that air parcel be higher at arrival?
    To use some simple numbers. starting at 30C dropping 6/km to -60C at 15 km, then rising 8/km to 60C when back at the surface.

  228. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 13, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Now to Will.
    2) No
    3) Evidence
    short enough?

    Where is your evidence the the 2 stream transfer model has any validity?

    lgl says: July 13, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Kristian
    Wow, now it’s getting interesting. Don’t you remember there is one flux in each direction in the steel greenhouse model?

    Where is your evidence the the 2 stream transfer model has any validity?
    The definition of flux is unidirectional! No surface radiates power proportional to its own T^4, ever.

    If the power source P were on the shell, the shell would reach temperature A to radiate P outward to its environment. The sphere is also at temperature A, with no forther flux transfer to/from shell.
    When the power source P is moved to the sphere Shell at temperature A still radiates P outward to its environment while sphere reaches temperature B such that P/(area sphere) equals sigma(TB^4- TA^4). The S-B equation is exact and alows no return flux from the lower temperature shell.

    Where is your evidence the the 2 stream transfer model has any validity?

  229. Will Janoschka says:

    Arfur Bryant says: July 14, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Rog,
    Now that you and lgl have finished, can you maybe explain something to me about his ppt slides?
    Slide 2-4.
    We started with 347.9 W/m2
    Then went to 340.7 without CO2
    Then went to 36.0 with no water vapour either.

    So what – according to the model – is providing the remaining 36 W/m2?
    ————————————————————————————————
    That is the approximate Thermal radiative flux that is actially emitted from the surface!
    All the rest is part of the scam.

  230. Will Janoschka says:

    Kristian says: July 14, 2014 at 9:52 am

    I have a problem understanding why people seem to think the concept of ‘heat’ is so difficult or confusing. Will Janoschka calls it ‘ill-defined’. It’s not ill-defined at all. The way I see it, it is really very straightforward indeed and very helpful to the whole AGW/GHE debate.

    If you know what ‘heat’ really is and how it flows through the Earth system, you’re a long way towards getting how the Earth’s climate actually works. The AGW movement does its best to obfuscate the concept of ‘heat’, simply because they know that if you only get that, you will see the central flaw in their hypothetized mechanism(s) at once.

    HEAT is simply that energy which is transferred from a hot to a cold object, or from a hot object to its cold surroundings, as a result of the difference in temperatures. Same temperature, no heat transfer.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Kristan,
    You are definately “not” defining HEAT you are defining flux “the transfer of HEAT”.
    What is it that you are transfering? You can have water in a thermos, or you can have hot water it the thermos no flux The difference is called sensible HEAT a name, not a definition.
    After you define that, define latent HEAT! Then define electricity!

    If you can do all three, you are likely the most intelegent person ever!

  231. lgl says:

    Will/Tallbloke

    Have to conclude with tallbloke first.
    Did we make any progress Tallbloke? If I rephrase to: The GHGs keeps the ocean warmer that it would have been without the GHGs?

    “Where is your evidence the the 2 stream transfer model has any validity?”

    The simple fact that the upward and downward spectra look totally different.

  232. tchannon says:

    “emissivity less than absorption”

    At the same wavelength?

    A further problem. Reflection.

  233. lgl says:

    Will / Arfur

    “That is the approximate Thermal radiative flux that is actially emitted from the surface”

    No, it is from the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. 36 is the downward flux.

  234. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm:

    <em<"You are definately “not” defining HEAT you are defining flux “the transfer of HEAT”."

    Sorry, but yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing – I’m defining HEAT. Look it up. It’s in any book on basic thermodynamics. Heat IS the energy (any energy) being spontaneously thermally transferred from hot to cold. ‘Energy in transit’ simply as a result of a difference in temperatures. Hence the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4). This is not something I’ve invented, Will.

    ‘Heat’ is NEVER found WITHIN objects (thermodynamic systems). ALWAYS and ONLY flowing BETWEEN them, from high to low potential, like air from high pressure to low pressure, like an electric current from high to low voltage. As soon as ‘heat’ is transferred (absorbed), it is no longer defined as ‘heat’. It then rather becomes additional ‘internal energy’ of that system, making it warmer. Same energy, differently defined. To me, this distinction is very easy to follow and to use. I find it almost intuitive.

    And it is very useful to counter nonsensical warmist claims.

  235. suricat says:

    Heat? Well everyone here ‘should’ now about it already, but if an explanaition was written here Rog would need to start a fresh page. Wikipedia isn’t too bad;

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

    but for clarity start here for its definition within a body;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Microscopic_view_of_heat

    before reading about energy transfer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Macroscopic_view_of_quantity_of_energy_transferred_as_heat

    It seems to make more sense to me in this order, though, wiki mentions colision in the ‘microscopic’ which doesn’t actually occur. Electrostatic charge prevents this.

    Best regards, Ray.

  236. Arfur Bryant says:

    lgl says:
    July 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Will / Arfur

    “That is the approximate Thermal radiative flux that is actially emitted from the surface”

    [“No, it is from the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. 36 is the downward flux.”]

    lgl,

    Sorry to be pedantic but can you please specify which ‘gases in the atmosphere’ are responsible for the DW 36 W/m^2?

  237. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 14, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Will/Tallbloke
    Have to conclude with tallbloke first.
    Did we make any progress Tallbloke? If I rephrase to: The GHGs keeps the ocean warmer that it would have been without the GHGs?
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    It is lapse rate that maintains ocean temperature. More atmospheric water vapor cooler surface.
    Your radiating gasses only radiate outward. Look it up! Look up Maxwell’s equations when dealing with opposing field strengths. See Pointing vector vs Pointing flux, EMR is never HEAT!

    “Where is your evidence the the 2 stream transfer model has any validity?”
    The simple fact that the upward and downward spectra look totally different.-
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    Planck’s integral/curve is that of spectral “radiance”, a spectral potential vector, never a flux.
    Notice the per steradian. Learn vector arithmetic. the S-B equation has the correct solution and only one flux.

    lgl says: July 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm
    Will / Arfur
    No, it is from the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. 36 is the downward flux.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    It is close to the actual surface “radiance” MINUS the actual atmospheric “radiance” near the surface. Thus it is close to the actual surfae flux one way in the direction of colder.

  238. Will Janoschka says:

    tchannon says: July 14, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    “emissivity less than absorption, At the same wavelength?”
    Emissivity equals absorptivity (surface qualities) are the same at every frequency and in every direction. emission and absorption are mutully exclusive under the same conditions.

    “A further problem. Reflection.”
    Indeed the “radiance” of what is reflected and transmitted need also be considered.

  239. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: July 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    “Heat? Well everyone here ‘should’ now about it already, but if an explanaition was written here Rog would need to start a fresh page. Wikipedia isn’t too bad;”

    Thanks Ray,
    The microscopic POV is from the “kinetic theory of gases”, which voiolate Newton’s Laws.
    Electrical, from Boltzmann’s constant may be close for sensible! Fits with TEMR!
    That electrostatic “collision”, may be the only “elastic”.
    Sensible HEAT is way different than latent HEAT, what may be other forms of occult HEAT?

    Roger, How about a HEAT thread.

    -will-

  240. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Have to conclude with tallbloke first.
    Did we make any progress Tallbloke? If I rephrase to: The GHGs keeps the ocean warmer that it would have been without the GHGs?

    The problem with giving an overly simple answer to this overly simple question is that it is then mistakenly used to validate all sorts of wrongheaded notions about what LW radiation does. 🙂

    It’s certainly true that it is possible for the Earth’s surface to be warmer than the grey-body temperature for an airless planet like the Moon at the same distance from the Sun because radiatively active gases cool the planet to space from altitude.

    But that doesn’t logically entail that it is the radiatively active gases in the lower atmosphere that are doing the job of warming the surface. And there’s plenty of evidence they can’t to any appreciable extent, due to the opacity of water to LWIR. So then it’s down to the degree to which LWIR slows the energy loss of the ocean by thermalising the air, compared to the degree to which the air is thermalised by Solar near IR (mostly absorbed in the upper atmosphere), and by conducted/convected heat from the ocean surface.

    I’m no expert in this field, but I’ve read that LWIR absorbed by radiatively active gases soon ends up as heat as a result of kinetic energy being transferred to O2 and N2.

    So I think there is a radiative effect warming the air. But when you compare the heat capacities of air and ocean, you can quickly see that by and large, the ocean surface sets the air temperature, and any rise in air temperature caused by additional co2 is simply going to increase convection and evaporation, fractionally speeding up the hydrological cycle.

    The dominant processes in the lower troposphere are constrained by feedback factors other than the radiative effects of radiative gases there, and so will simply adjust parameters slightly to nullify the effect caused by a change in co2 level.

    Which leaves the question of what really does make the surface so much warmer than the Moon. So far as I can see, it’s the Sun’s energy being absorbed in the ocean in 3D while it is only able to lose energy from a 2D surface, hampered by the Earth’s gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere to create surface pressure which suppresses the rate of evaporation, and increasing the density of the near surface air so that it absorbs more incoming SW and outgoing IR, thus warming up and lowering the temperature differential the ocean has to lose heat into. That forces the ocean to rise in temperature to the point where it is able to overcome those restrictions.

    Then there’s also the fact that the ocean is mobile, and spreads the heat absorbed in the tropics polewards and around to the nightside, reducing Holder’s inequality and thus raising the average surface temperature. Moondust is a poor transmitter of heat, so most of it is re-radiated near the equator where most of it is received. Because of the T^4 relationship between radiation and temperature, that means a lower average surface temperature than a body which is able to spread the heat more evenly between equator and poles, and dayside and nightside. Earth’s oceans have a mobility and high heat capacity which coupled with the more rapid spin rate, combine to keep the entire surface more evenly warm than the Moon’s dust and rock can. More evenly warm means higher average T. This is a large part of what keeps Earth’s surface so much warmer then the Moon’s (60C or more, not 33C!) on average.

  241. tallbloke says:

    Will says: Roger, How about a HEAT thread.

    Sure, you write the intro as a comment, submit it on the suggestions page, and I’ll post it as an article for a new thread.

  242. Kristian says: July 14, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Will Janoschka says, July 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm:

    <em<"You are definately “not” defining HEAT you are defining flux “the transfer of HEAT”."

    Sorry, but yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing – I’m defining HEAT. Look it up. It’s in any book on basic thermodynamics. Heat IS the energy (any energy) being spontaneously thermally transferred from hot to cold. ‘Energy in transit’ simply as a result of a difference in temperatures. Hence the radiative heat transfer equation: P/A = es*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4). This is not something I’ve invented, Will.

    ‘Heat’ is NEVER found WITHIN objects (thermodynamic systems). ALWAYS and ONLY flowing BETWEEN them, from high to low potential, like air from high pressure to low pressure, like an electric current from high to low voltage. As soon as ‘heat’ is transferred (absorbed), it is no longer defined as ‘heat’. It then rather becomes additional ‘internal energy’ of that system, making it warmer. Same energy, differently defined. To me, this distinction is very easy to follow and to use. I find it almost intuitive.

    And it is very useful to counter nonsensical warmist claims.
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    And that is why your conflation of HEAT with flux, will never counter the SCAM. Consider your:. "Heat IS the energy (any energy) being spontaneously thermally transferred from hot to cold." The proper verb for that spontanious process is "heating" or "to heat" Define the noun HEAT please? Sensible HEAT heat involves temperature, chemical HEAT, example latent heat, does not involve temperature, but involves a transfer of energy, perhaps not heat, energy never thermalized. Water vapor under pressure can have any amount of HEAT energy at any temperature above the boiling point at that pressure.
    ‘Heat’ is NEVER found WITHIN objects (thermodynamic systems)."
    Heat is always associated with some mass (rest mass). Heat is the "agent" that associates specific heat and sensible heat for any "mass" at a consistant state! This is why EMR is never HEAT as it has no rest mass. Please get away from the Wikipedia (vernacular),and into the scientific. What forms of HEAT have not yet been discovered?

  243. tallbloke says: July 14, 2014 at 11:46 pm
    Will says: Roger, How about a HEAT thread.
    Sure, you write the intro as a comment, submit it on the suggestions page, and I’ll post it as an article for a new thread.
    Roger,
    I will attempt that at some time. You already have more than enough. How does HEAT relate to the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, as invented without meaning by the clowns?
    Does the irradiance of the Sun, determine some black body temperature, as claimed? Does Solar irradiance only determine the very interesting Earth weather? Is the internal energy and temperature of Earth determined by some other form of energy as suggested by Jo Nova, and David Evans? Can this new energy violate 2LTD and spontaneously pump energy uphill?
    Perhaps Kristain can actually define HEAT!

  244. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, July 15, 2014 at 12:21 am:

    “And that is why your conflation of HEAT with flux, will never counter the SCAM.”

    Sigh. I asked you to actually go look up the physical definition of heat, Will, and you respond by just moving on with your personal opinion about what ‘heat’ might be. Then it’s pretty hard to make any progress.

    Here’s one example from the textbook ‘Fundamentals of Thermodynamics’ from 2009 by Borgnakke & Sonntag. You will find that their definition is exactly the same as in ALL similar textbooks:

    “If a block of hot copper is placed in a beaker of cold water, we know from experience that the block of copper cools down and the water warms up until the copper and water reach the same temperature. What causes this decrease in the temperature of the copper and the increase in the temperature of the water? We say that it is the result of the transfer of energy from the copper block to the water. It is from such a transfer of energy that we arrive at a definition of heat.

    Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to the system at the lower temperature, and the heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the two systems.”

    Heat, like work, is a form of energy transfer to or from a system. Therefore, the units for heat, and for any other form of energy as well, are the same as the units for work, or at least are directly proportional to them. In the International System the unit for heat (energy) is the joule.”

    (My emphasis.)

    Are all these textbooks on thermodynamics ‘part of the scam’, Will?

  245. tallbloke says:

    “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system”

    Right, and since all systems have mass, energy is inherently associated with mass. That heat-energy is what is transferred, and so HEAT is not the transference itself, but that ‘THING’ which is being transferred from HOTTER systems to COOLER systems. So what does the transferring? It is a spontaneous process which occurs because the adjacent systems do not have the same temperature. And what is that spontaneous process? It is the tendency to entropy.

    So in summary; HEAT is inherent to MASS and is TRANSFERRED between massive objects at different TEMPERATURES due to ENTROPY.

  246. Kristian says:

    tallbloke says, July 15, 2014 at 12:54 am:

    “So in summary; HEAT is inherent to MASS and is TRANSFERRED between massive objects at different TEMPERATURES due to ENTROPY.”

    Tallbloke, I would rather say: “… to maximize entropy.” Entropy becomes maximized in a specific heat transfer situation when the two objects involved have reached equal temperature. Then there is no more heat transferred.

  247. tallbloke says:

    Kristian: Entropy becomes maximized in a specific heat transfer situation when the two objects involved have reached equal temperature. Then there is no more heat transferred.

    I can go with that if you add ‘between the two systems’ to the end. Will? You happy now?

  248. suricat says:

    “Perhaps you can answer? With water evaporation, typically the expansion is by 1000 with an energy input greater than 2000 Joules/gm. How much energy to expand by 500 to water vapor dimers, more dense than monomers, and hardly advecting at all.”

    The ‘Latent Heat of Vapourisation’ (kJ/kg) for water is 2260, thus you under-estimate by 260 J/gm. 😉

    Expansion is ‘something else’. Water can only evaporate into an ambient gaseous ‘open environment’ that is already below the ‘saturation level’ (100% ‘RH’ [Relative Humidity]), unless the temperature of the water forces vapour into the gas mix which would probably cause ‘mist’ above the water (in Earth’s systems, a ‘possible’ ‘hurricane seed’ event).

    ‘WV’ (Water Vapour) doesn’t exist as a ‘unique gas’ (a gas that can naturally exist, separately, only in gaseous form), but if it did it would exhibit a density of ~3/5 of that of Earth’s remaining atmospheric gasses. The expansion ratio for change of phase from liquid to gas seems arbitrary, unless you want to ‘track’ a ‘parcel of air’. 😉

    “Surface wind now, is a different world!”

    Over sea surface, yes. No wind means high SST because SS can’t cool so well due to 100% RH at SS. Wind means low SST because SS can cool due to <100% RH at SS. Turbulence generated by advection is always possible and provided by the coriolis effect from Earth's rotation. However, some scenarios establish 'calm' over SS at some locations.

    "Are 2(H2O) thingies transmissive at 8-14 microns?

    I'm unfamilliar with 'dimers', though their chemical composition would suggest 'micro water droplets' that are too small to fill the role of 'CCN' (Cloud Condensation Neuclii). However, I found this paper from 1997:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL01949/abstract

    Is this related?

    "Why does "sea state" matter so mutch?"

    This is to do with 'wind advection'. Besides the 'sweeping' of WV in the low atmosphere from the sea surface to reduce the RH at the 'ocean/atmosphere' interface, strong 'wind/advection' generates ripples upon the sea surface. These 'ripples' tend to fall into oneanother to generate stable 'waves' that progress over the ocean surface. The final outcome is that the 'surface area' of the 'ocean/atmosphere' interface is enhanced, possibly with the inclusion of 'spray' as a further enhancement.

    "Konrad thought leaves were hard!"

    They are! 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  249. Kristian says:

    I never get tired of these two maps:



  250. tallbloke says:

    Kristian: Yep, lots of latent heat going up the column in the rainy areas.
    Nice graphics, thanks.

    Regard these carefully lgl.

  251. Kristian says: July 15, 2014 at 12:45 am
    Will Janoschka says, July 15, 2014 at 12:21 am:
    “And that is why your conflation of HEAT with flux, will never counter the SCAM.”

    Here’s one example from the textbook ‘Fundamentals of Thermodynamics’ from 2009 by Borgnakke & Sonntag. You will find that their definition is exactly the same as in ALL similar textbooks: Are all these textbooks on thermodynamics ‘part of the scam’, Will?
    ——————————————————————————————————
    YES! All physics textbooks and heat transfer handbooks are part of the Nuevo science SCAM of stastical mechanics and the kinetic theory of everything. put firmly in place by Carl Sagon with his bastardisation of the Schwarzschild-Milne integral into the Schuster-Schwarzschild-two-flux appriximation and applying that to Venus with radiative but non incandecent gasses.This is what started the “back radiation’ garbage! There was none prior to 1960. Thermodynamics was complete by 1930, it needed no new fake interpretation.

    Kristian says: “Heat, like work, is a form of energy transfer to or from a system. Therefore, the units for heat, and for any other form of energy as well, are the same as the units for work, or at least are directly proportional to them. In the International System the unit for heat (energy) is the joule.”

    You seem to insist that the electrical energy used to move HEAT to a higher temperature, like in your air conditioner also as HEAT it is not!
    Please state the scientific distinction between a volume of cold water and an equal volume of hot water, with no flux? This is one but not all definitions of HEAT! What forms of HEAT are independent of temperature? Look up the definition of HEAT in a 1950s version of Encyclopedia Britannica, how many pages is that? It is NOT complete.
    The SI units for irradiance are Watts/(square meter). Irradiance is never a flux. Define the noun HEAT completely. It never means the verb to heat! Heat is not work, but mistakenly have the same unit Joules! Work (noun) correctly has the units of Joule-seconds, a unit of action. only the verb “to work” has units of Joules. All of these contradictions allow the CAGW scam to endure. Please do not assist!

  252. tallbloke says: July 15, 2014 at 1:19 am

    Kristian: Entropy becomes maximized in a specific heat transfer situation when the two objects involved have reached equal temperature. Then there is no more heat transferred.

    I can go with that if you add ‘between the two systems’ to the end. Will? You happy now?

    Oh YES! And no more thermal EMF transfer, between the two. Both can still dispose of all that entropy via Thermal EMF to whatever at a lower temperature over GRAND distances! Just like the Sun does. Earth interferes with that process! After all my name is in the title. Thank you!

  253. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Define the noun HEAT completely. It never means the verb to heat! Heat is not work, but mistakenly have the same unit Joules! Work (noun) correctly has the units of Joule-seconds, a unit of action. only the verb “to work” has units of Joules. All of these contradictions allow the CAGW scam to endure. Please do not assist!

    OK, I like word precision. Please write it up as a post intro.

  254. suricat says: July 15, 2014 at 1:29 am

    “Perhaps you can answer? With water evaporation, typically the expansion is by 1000 with an energy input greater than 2000 Joules/gm. How much energy to expand by 500 to water vapor dimers, more dense than monomers, and hardly advecting at all.”

    The ‘Latent Heat of Vapourisation’ (kJ/kg) for water is 2260, thus you under-estimate by 260 J/gm. 😉
    Thanks Ray for the article,
    Some murmers that the condensation multi-merzation in clouds takes hunderds of steps while continually reversing within the cloud. No sane folk hang around in clouds!
    With simple leaves the structure allows a complete phase change and only a O2 and lotsa momomer H2O to be expired at higher than atmospheric pressure. The 2ev wave packets help a lot.

  255. tallbloke says: July 15, 2014 at 2:46 am

    Will J: Define the noun HEAT completely. It never means the verb to heat! Heat is not work, but mistakenly have the same unit Joules! Work (noun) correctly has the units of Joule-seconds, a unit of action. only the verb “to work” has units of Joules. All of these contradictions allow the CAGW scam to endure. Please do not assist!

    OK, I like word precision. Please write it up as a post intro.

    Roger,
    That action is also callad a quantum, as in Two quanta of america’s cup 2014 sailboats in San Francisco Bay. Work (effort) lotsa time, lotsa money. ACTION. Let someone calculate the actual number of Planck units.
    I am about out of SWAGs today. I must go read more!

  256. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Will / Arfur

    “That is the approximate Thermal radiative flux that is actially emitted from the surface”

    No, it is from the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. 36 is the downward flux.

    Do yo work at the Virak Powerplant, or own it?

    Norway may actually have some downwelling IR in a temperature inversion, but never 36 W/m^2 for more than a minuite! Air does not have that much energy.

  257. Bob_FJ says:

    Kristian @ July 14, 2014 at 9:52 am…….Suricat below============

    A well you see, I’m a grumpy old long-retired engineer and remember when HEAT was differently and less obscurely defined to that from modern-day academics. (Such as they say; HEAT can be any form of energy if it is travelling between A to B with a result)
    It used to be quite straight forward for either a steady state or heat transfer consideration at two levels of definition for a particular sample:
    1) At the quantum level e.g. at a constant temperature, the level of heat was indicated by the wobble of the molecules. (There need not be any heat transfer involved).
    2) At worldly level e.g. at a constant temperature, the heat content could be calculated if stuff like specific heat, temperature, phase (latent heat) and mass were known. (There need not be any heat transfer involved)
    Let’s look at your example of heat transfer via EMR, (and you say it may be via any form of energy):
    QUOTE__________________________________________________
    “…Looking only at the posited two opposing EMR hemifluxes in a radiative ‘heat’ transfer situation and treating them both as separate flows of energy (they’re NOT) is doing no good to the understanding of what’s really going on. It will always only confuse the matter.
    Theoretically it’s fine to keep them – they make calculating the ‘heat’ a relatively uncomplicated task. But thereby thinking they’re actual fluxes of energy in their own right represents a complete miscontrual of reality. A radiation field can’t be split into two or more separate fluxes. Any sane person would see that.”
    UNQUOTE________________________________________________

    Yes in part, but EMR is not (classical) HEAT until it is absorbed at the molecular level, so even that part of EMR that results in a heat transfer, (a fairly complicated matter), is not HEAT in itself per classical thinking.
    =================================================

    SURICAT @ July 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm
    You say Wikipedia is not bad, but it does tend to be controversial on controversial/emotional matters. Out of curiosity I checked back on the WayBack machine and found there were many revisions but the earliest was at 2013. It had a condescending reference to the different engineering definition I mentioned above.
    Here is a confusing situation: If we consider two separate bodies of different T in a vacuum, the space between them is recently the only place where HEAT can exist and yet its energy form is EMR, which is peculiar stuff.
    Does it seem strange that Wikipedia has an extensive entry for Heat Transfer? Erh HEAT is moved from a place where there is no HEAT to a place where there is still no HEAT! (but rather thermal energy, if you are not an engineer)

  258. lgl says:

    Tallbloke

    “And there’s plenty of evidence they can’t to any appreciable extent, due to the opacity of water to LWIR”

    OK, so we made no progress, I’ll have to leave you in the dark.

    You and Kristian should regard those maps carefully. How much latent heat is transported globally? How much is that compared to the total?

  259. lgl says:

    Will

    “Planck’s integral/curve is that of spectral “radiance”, a spectral potential vector, never a flux”

    Radiant flux is (if pointsource) spectral radiance multiplied by surface area and bandwidth (and 4pi) so don’t even try.

    “Sorry to be pedantic but can you please specify which ‘gases in the atmosphere’ are responsible for the DW 36”

    All of them, do I have to list them?

  260. lgl says:

    Will /Arfur

    “… no bonds between carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms absorb in the interval between about 8 and 14 µm, though there is weaker continuum absorption in that interval.”
    (and then of course also some emission in that interval)

  261. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 8:50 am

    Will

    “Planck’s integral/curve is that of spectral “radiance”, a spectral potential vector, never a flux”

    Radiant flux is (if pointsource) spectral radiance multiplied by surface area and bandwidth (and 4pi) so don’t even try.Now you have a black body point source.

    Was my statement incorrect in any way? There is no radiant flux in a direction of greater radiance at that frequency. Radiative flux is always strictly limited by any opposing radiance at that frequency. The Schwarzschild two-stream approximation is a mathematical crutch, never verified, never detected in this physical!
    Do you work at the Virak Powerplant, or own it?

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 8:50 am “Sorry to be pedantic but can you please specify which ‘gases in the atmosphere’ are responsible for the DW 36″
    All of them, do I have to list them?

    That was not a questionI would pose!! There is no EMR in a direction of higher field strength!

    Modtran cannot be used to determine radiant flux. It is only used to approximate attenuation of temporal or spatial “modulation” of flux in either direction or none!

  262. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 9:12 am

    Will /Arfur

    “… no bonds between carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms absorb in the interval between about 8 and 14 µm, though there is weaker continuum absorption in that interval.”
    (and then of course also some emission in that interval)
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    This data from where exactly? Who measured? When?
    H2O gas multimers in atmosphere near ocean surface and clouds has much absorption in that band. An equal mass of rain is easier to see through. Modtran would model that as Sea State!

  263. tallbloke says:

    lgl: How much latent heat is transported globally? How much is that compared to the total?

    Well the total is 240W/m^2, the upward flux of LW percolating through the atmosphere is 60, the atmospheric window is 40 according to Trenberth. That leaves 140 by other means, mostly latent heat.

    OK, so we made no progress

    It does seem you’re still in denial about the inability of DWLIR to directly transfer much energy into the ocean yes. Oh well, Tim F now accepts that all the LWIR in the atmosphere can do is warm the air, so I suppose that’s some progress at least.

    You and Kristian should regard those maps carefully

    I suspect you don’t understand what the negative numbers are telling you. and since you dismissed my lengthy missive so curtly, I’m not going to bother explaining it to you.

  264. Konrad says:

    lgl says:
    July 15, 2014 at 8:15 am
    Tallbloke
    “And there’s plenty of evidence they can’t to any appreciable extent, due to the opacity of water to LWIR”
    OK, so we made no progress, I’ll have to leave you in the dark.
    ———————————————–
    Still not getting it?


    Many sceptics are well aware that DWLWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    You appear to be well behind in your understanding of the kinetic state of individual molecules in the skin evaporation of water and their interactions with LWIR photons.

    You want to run back to the old warmist claims that DWLWIR is keeping the oceans 33K higher than their theoretical blackbody temperature? Fine. Produce evidence of a single simple empirical experiment that incident LWIR effects water that is free to evaporatively cool in the same way it can effect other materials.

    You can’t do it can you? You will just run back to maths that says it “must.”. You have no empirical evidence. No simple repeatable lab experiment. You have nothing except…the Minnett tripe 😉

    Want to maintain some “cred” here? Empirical evidence please…

    But you have nothing do you?

  265. Ben Wouters says:

    lgl says: July 14, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    “Ben
    Well, that was just a thought, could very well be wrong, but I’m imagining air rising in the moist tropics and sinking back to surface in the dry Sahara. Wouldn’t the temp of that air parcel be higher at arrival?”

    In the Hadley circulation the rising air loses a lot of moisture as rain, so when that air sinks to the surface it will of course arrive warmer than when it started its ascend.
    Without rain the temperature difference would be ~zero.
    This effect is the same as the classic Föhn effect. (same as Chinook winds)
    So the surface under the rising air sheds heat and is cooled by the rain, the sinking air will arrive warmer at the surface. Now the question is how much this warm air can heat the oceans and deserts it descends to.
    Net effect is moving warm air towards the desert band around 30 N and S.

  266. lgl says:

    Will

    1. ‘topic’
    “Was my statement incorrect in any way?”
    It was a diversion attempt, done.

    2. topic
    “Radiative flux is always strictly limited by any opposing radiance at that frequency”
    No. According to which physics law? The Janoschka law?

  267. lgl says:

    Sorry tallbloke
    but your lengthy missive was just a repetition of the old stuff for the n-th time.

  268. tallbloke says:

    Ben W: So the surface under the rising air sheds heat and is cooled by the rain, the sinking air will arrive warmer at the surface.
    Net effect is moving warm air towards the desert band around 30 N and S.

    Thanks for explaining to lgl what I couldn’t be bothered to.

    Now the question is how much this warm air can heat the oceans and deserts it descends to.

    The oceans just 8 degrees outside the tropics? Not a lot. Not at all in summer. They may restrict cooling to some extent though, allowing the Sun to force the water to a higher temperature. This issue over land is the dryness, not the warmth. Over the oceans, that dryness will permit more evapostaion, cooling the ocean. So net effect over the ocean of the descending dry, warm air is likely to be negligible, though I don’t know for sure which way the balance will go.

  269. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Sorry tallbloke but your lengthy missive was just a repetition of the old stuff for the n-th time.

    I keep repeating it because you keep failing to address it. Poor debating etiquette on your part again.

  270. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    ?? I spent half a day addressing it!

  271. Kristian says:

    Bob_FJ says, July 15, 2014 at 6:08 am:

    “A well you see, I’m a grumpy old long-retired engineer and remember when HEAT was differently and less obscurely defined to that from modern-day academics. (Such as they say; HEAT can be any form of energy if it is travelling between A to B with a result)
    It used to be quite straight forward (…)”

    Hi, Bob. I can appreciate how you might think ‘my’ definition of heat is more obscure. But it really isn’t. In reality it’s very clear-cut and easy to relate to. It is simply the energy transferred spontaneously between two systems at different temperatures, as a result of that temperature difference. Nothing more, nothing less. This energy can be transferred via conduction > convection or radiation, or – in a less straightforward manner – latently (evaporation > condensation).

    Heat is a (thermodynamically) working flow of energy. In nature it always and only moves from hot to cold. It is unidirectional. No theory of radiative physics or statistical mechanics can ever change this. There is no carte blanche given to, no special arrangements pertaining to, EMR when it comes to ‘heat’ and ‘heat transfer’. The laws of thermodynamics still apply. They still stand firm. Their statements are still absolute.

    I see people like ‘Science of Doom’ trying to circumvent the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that all energy being absorbed MUST somehow change the temperature of the absorbing system, even when that energy (radiative, of course) originates from a colder place, because the 1st Law apparently says so. Er, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics of course says no such thing. Here is perhaps the most common (Clausius) rendition of the 1st Law (for a closed system): ΔU = Q – W. The internal energy (U) of the system in question, and hence its temperature, MUST change if the heat into the system from its surroundings (Q) minus the work done by the system on its surroundings (W) somehow changes. ANY energy into the system will not change its internal energy and thereby its temperature. Only a change in HEAT and/or WORK into/out of the system will.

    Meaning, if the system absorbs a larger radiative (EMR) flux than before, this won’t change the internal energy of the system if there is an equally larger radiative flux being emitted. Because the HEAT (Q: [Q_in – Q_out]) hasn’t changed.

    This is why you can’t, like the rGHE promoters want, focus only on the EMR in ONE direction, simply ignoring the one in the opposite direction, and say “This ‘flux’ MUST change the temperature of the receiving system.”

    The only way DWLWIR potential flux from the cooler air could ever work towards making the warmer (already solar-heated) surface even warmer, is if it grew without or before the simultaneous and inseparable UWLWIR potential flux from the surface to the air did. This is because it would reduce the radiative HEAT flux going UP from the surface, the heat flux being the ‘net’ of the DWLWIR and UWLWIR potential fluxes.

    And how could this be accomplished? By the specific air layer above the solar-heated surface warming relative to the surface, thereby reducing the temp gradient away from it.

    Referring once again to the radiative heat transfer equation:

    P/A = es*(T_sfc^4 – T_air^4)

    If T_air grew without a similar increase in T_sfc, P/A (the HEAT, Q_out from the surface ‘system’) would become smaller. And then, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, the surface would start accumulating (solar) energy, its internal energy (U) would grow (because the ‘net heat’: [Q_in – Q_out] would increase) and its temperature would start rising as a result.

    We never see this occurring globally in the real surface/atmosphere system.

    The emissivity term in the equation above for all intents and purposes relates only to the heat emitter (the warmer system), not to the heat absorber (the cooler system). I’ve had strange discussions with warmists claiming ad hoc that the cooler air above doesn’t have to become warmer at all, only raise its emissivity, to reduce the heat from the surface and hence make it warmer. But this is a nonsensical (and un-physical) claim, because if it were true, it would allow bizarre situations to occur, where an object hotter than another one would still GAIN heat from the colder object, simply because of severe differences in emissivity. What if the surface had an emissivity of only 0.1 and the air above it an emissivity of 1? Then, if the surface held a temperature of 288K and the air a temperature of 280K, in what direction would the ‘net’ flux between the two ‘systems’ move?

    es*T_sfc = 39 W/m^2 (UWLWIR)
    es*T_air = 349 W/m^2 (DWLWIR)

    But, hey, the air can only absorb the flux first coming from the surface, its heat source, some would argue, and then only emit some part of that back down, depending on its emissivity.

    OK. Then, in this case it would end up like this:

    es*T_sfc = 39 W/m^2 (UWLWIR)
    es*T_air = 39 W/m^2 (DWLWIR)

    No ‘heat’ transferred. Q = 0. Even though the surface is still 8 degrees warmer than the air layer above. (Note, we are not talking about reflection here.)

    But only about half would ever be going down, you say? The rest would be going up (disregarding the sides). Would it really? OK. Tell that to Trenberth & Kiehl, then. They apparently don’t agree. UWLWIR: 396 W/m^2; DWLWIR: 333 W/m^2. How are these numbers arrived at? By the very same basic CALCULATION performed by all the pyrgeometers in the world. You MEASURE (detect) the ‘heat’ first (and in the case of T&K, you estimate a global mean: 63 W/m^2 UP), then you MEASURE the temperature of the sensor (or in the case of T&K, the surface: 289K) and put this into the S-B equation to obtain the UWLWIR potential (BB in a vacuum at 0 K) flux. Well, easy peasy, calculated UWLWIR minus measured HEAT gives calculated DWLWIR.

    How does the 333 W/m^2 DWLWIR potential flux relate to the temperature and emissivity of the atmosphere? What’s the temperature? What’s the emissivity? And how much goes up as compared to down? I don’t see the connection. I only see an arbitrary number arrived at by subtracting the measured heat from the calculated UWLWIR (based on mean surface temp).

    It’s all pretty backward, I would say.

    Well, anyway. The overall point here is that the HEAT is the only real flow of energy between the surface and the atmosphere, whether it’s conductive, convective, latent OR radiative. They ALL go UP. From hot to cold. And it amounts to a total mean of 161 W/m^2 (or rather 160; there’s an energy surplus, mind you, according to T&K). Simply because the total mean IN from the Sun is 161 W/m^2. Balance. The radiative heat is what it is (66 W/m^2) because the convective heat is what it is (97 W/m^2). (According to Stephens et al. 2012, these figures are rather 52-53 and 112 W/m^2 respectively.) It’s all simply about shedding the absorbed energy.

    The function of the atmosphere is to restrict that upward flow of energy from the solar-heated surface AT A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE. And it does so by 1) being warm, setting up a finite (sub-max) temp gradient away from the surface, and 2) exerting a pressure above 0 on the surface. It’s not about restricting the movement of EMR. It’s about restricting the movement of air.

  272. lgl says:

    b t w Kristian and Tallbloke
    I never get tired of this map 🙂

  273. Ben Wouters says:

    tallbloke says: July 15, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Ben W: Now the question is how much this warm air can heat the oceans and deserts it descends to.

    The oceans just 8 degrees outside the tropics? Not a lot. Not at all in summer. They may restrict cooling to some extent though, allowing the Sun to force the water to a higher temperature. This issue over land is the dryness, not the warmth. Over the oceans, that dryness will permit more evapostaion, cooling the ocean. So net effect over the ocean of the descending dry, warm air is likely to be negligible, though I don’t know for sure which way the balance will go.

    Given the sp. heat capacities of air and water, the temperature difference, the air only touching the surface etc. I’d say the effect is very close to zero for the SURFACE temperature.

    Are you now accepting that the DALR and SALR are only valid WITHIN adiabatically rising or sinking air masses?

  274. lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 10:17 am
    Will
    1. ‘topic’
    “Was my statement incorrect in any way?”
    It was a diversion attempt, done.
    So you claim that the Planck integral somehow calculates a flux rather that a vector potential.
    Please state what “per steradian” means besides a vector? Have you been exposed to vector arithmetic?

    2. topic
    “Radiative flux is always strictly limited by any opposing radiance at that frequency”
    No. According to which physics law? The Janoschka law?
    This has nothing to do with thermodynamics, any claim electromagnetic flux is not limited by an opposing field strength is in crontradiction with Maxwell’s equations. Again Poynying vectors summing to one pointing flux, demonstrated and measured over and over!

  275. Tim Folkerts says: July 14, 2014 at 1:06 am
    Someone said:
    “at best, extra co2 is only going to slow the rate of heat loss by making the air warmer “

    Yes, that is indeed one good way of saying it. Adding more CO2 @12 km up in the atmosphere will slow the rate of heat lose from the layer at 11.9 km, making it warmer. This will slow the slow the heat loss from the layer @ 11.8 km, making *it* warmer. And so all the way down.

    If each layer is at thermodynamic equilibrium it can delay or inhibit incident EMF not at all. Kirchoff.
    If each layer is at a higher temperature due to other than radiatine absorption that pascel will already be transfering to cold more than any EMF flux received.
    Your limitation on TEMR flux is nonsense as is the concept of dowward “percolation or downward flux of any sort!

  276. lgl says:

    Will

    No, that was not my claim. Per steradian means per 1/4pi of the surface of a sphere, and yes I have been exposed to vector arithmetic, and no Maxwell is useful when dealing with the wave-like properties of the photon but now we are dealing with the particle-like properties of the photon, so no more diversion attempts, I’ll not respond to more of those.

    Is “crontradiction with Maxwell’s equations” all you have to disprove science?

  277. Will Janoschka says:

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Will
    “No, that was not my claim. Per steradian means per 1/4pi of the surface of a sphere, and yes I have been exposed to vector arithmetic,”

    Per steradian in vector arithmatetic is only a direction works well down to my one microsteradian.
    so I can see 90 independent units of “radiance” on the sun from the earth.

    and no Maxwell is useful when dealing with the wave-like properties of the photon but now we are dealing with the particle-like properties of the photon, so no more diversion attempts, I’ll not respond to more of those. Respond directly to the toilet with your nonsense. We are dealing only with electromagnetic radiation as described by Maxwell’s equations.

    “Is “contradiction with Maxwell’s equations” all you have to disprove science?”

    That is all I need, you have absolutely no theory or verification of your fantasy!

  278. lgl says:

    Will
    Good, because there is no contradiction with Maxwell’s equations so then you have nothing.

  279. tallbloke says:

    lgl: 90% of LW emitted by the surface in wavelengths absorbed by GHG’s is absorbed in the first km of atmosphere. The LW which gets through the atmospheric window, simply exits through the atmospheric window. Which processes and environmantal qualities dominate the maintenance of the lapse rate between 1km and the tropopause?

  280. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    The problem with giving an overly simple answer to this overly simple question is that it is then mistakenly used to validate all sorts of wrongheaded notions about what … does

    It doesn’t matter what’s happening above 1 km as long as the energy balance at surface stays the same, so what is your point?

  281. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Nothing stays the same. To pretend it does is mischievious. One quantity alters, others compensate. The homeostatic capabilities of the planet are inscribed in the proxy data and carved in the rock.

    The point is that the lapse rate is maintained by processes and qualities of the system. other than IR predominantly.

    Your ppt is silent about this.

  282. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    The point is that only one quantity matters to the ocean temperature and that is the net energy transfer at the surface (dont start with subsea volcanoes and that nonsense now).
    The overwhelmingly dominant inputs are solar SW and GHG LW (SW 1/3 and LW 2/3)
    It is unbelievable that it can be so difficult to understand the temperature will drop if we remove most of the 2/3 of the total input and leave the output unchanged.

  283. tallbloke says:

    lgl: Your thought experiment is uninformative vis a vis the real world.

  284. lgl says:

    Tallbloke
    Another mystery. Why do you believe


    and probably this:

    but not this:

  285. Ben Wouters says:

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    ” The point is that only one quantity matters to the ocean temperature and that is the net energy transfer at the surface (dont start with subsea volcanoes and that nonsense now).
    The overwhelmingly dominant inputs are solar SW and GHG LW (SW 1/3 and LW 2/3)”

    Over 50% of solar energy reaching the surface AFTER massive absorption by H2O and CO2 is in the IR band (> 700 nm).
    Now pse explain how heated surface water can reach the deep oceans BELOW the thermocline.
    Especially explain how the DEEP oceans could have been ~ 18K above present temperatures in the Cretaceous without this subsea volcanoes nonsense.

  286. lgl says:

    Ben
    Why? I have no idea how the energy flows were during the Cretaceous, neither do you I hope.

  287. Arfur Bryant says:

    lgl says:
    July 15, 2014 at 8:50 am

    [““Sorry to be pedantic but can you please specify which ‘gases in the atmosphere’ are responsible for the DW 36″

    All of them, do I have to list them?”]

    Well, yes, of course you have to list them! You’ve removed CO2 and H2O. According to the MODTRAN model you presented, what gases remain total about a 5 times greater contribution to the DWLWIR than does CO2. So yes, I’d really like to know which gases you mean!

  288. lgl says:

    Arfur
    “what gases remain total about a 5 times greater contribution to the DWLWIR than does CO2”

    What the h.. do you mean?

  289. Ben Wouters says:

    lgl says: July 15, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    ” I have no idea how the energy flows were during the Cretaceous, neither do you I hope”

    Actually I do. I have a list with proven magma eruptions during that time, totaling around 10% in volume of the total ocean water volume on earth.

    You didn’t answer my question about the mechanism for transporting warm water to below the thermocline into the cold, dense, deep oceans.

  290. Konrad says:

    tallbloke says:
    July 15, 2014 at 7:23 pm
    ——————————-
    This is telling –

    “The point is that only one quantity matters to the ocean temperature and that is the net energy transfer at the surface [..]. The overwhelmingly dominant inputs are solar SW and GHG LW (SW 1/3 and LW 2/3) It is unbelievable that it can be so difficult to understand the temperature will drop if we remove most of the 2/3 of the total input and leave the output unchanged.”

    – no matter how many dodges and diversions, one way or another the AGW claims all come back to claiming that DWLWIR is slowing the cooling rate of the oceans and causing their temperature to be 33K higher because “the maths say it must”.

    Yet there is not one shred of credible empirical evidence to support these claims. Instead the empirical experiment shows that DWLWIR will have no effect on oceans with an average Beaufort scale 4 wind speed. And no AGW believer can point to any “basic physics” of the “settled science” that treats the oceans as a UV/SW selective surface not a near blackbody.

  291. Kristian says:

    Sorry, but why do you all keep feeding the troll, I wonder …? This discussion would be much more productive if we simply moved away from the bubble fantasy physics of said troll and into the realm of reality.

  292. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: July 15, 2014 at 2:57 am

    “Thanks Ray for the article,”

    Only too glad that I was in the right ‘ball park’.

    “Some murmers that the condensation multi-merzation in clouds takes hunderds of steps while continually reversing within the cloud. No sane folk hang around in clouds!”

    Water has no other option than to “hang around in clouds” until it precipitates to the surface. Diurnal forcing to cloud tops is the most obvious reason I can think of for the production of these ‘micro-droplet’ molymers/dimers, but I presume that cloud base may also provide a means for the evolution of molymerisation.

    One point to considder, how hard is it for a WV molecule to escape a dimer? My suspicion is that a (2) H2O molecule would need ‘twice’ the energetic excitation required to evaporate/eject a molecule from a ‘gob’ (larger mass) of water (reactionary forces must be greatly reduced for a dimer).

    “With simple leaves the structure allows a complete phase change and only a O2 and lotsa momomer H2O to be expired at higher than atmospheric pressure. The 2ev wave packets help a lot.”

    I think you confuse a plant’s consumpoin of ‘water’ (H2O) with its consumption of ‘carbon dioxide’ (CO2).

    AFAIK, the ‘electron train’ digests hydrogen and releases oxygen in ‘atomic form’ (a single atom) when photosynthysising water. Carbon digestion of CO2 during photosynthysis releases ‘molecular’ (a ‘two atom molecule’) oxygen.

    Do you suggest that the ‘electron train’ that excretes ‘O’ may also generate ‘monomers of H2O’?

    Have you considdered ‘respiration’ during the ‘other half’ of the diurnal cycle?

    Best rgards, Ray.

  293. Bob_FJ says:

    Kristian @ July 15, 2014 at 11:39 am

    Thank you for your lengthy comment, but you seem to have overlooked the issues I raised @ July 15, 2014 at 6:08 am

    Let me briefly demonstrate why ‘your’ (the modern academic) definition of HEAT is, if I put it politely, “not very good” (in the British sarcastic sense).

    In an experiment, a suitable stable solid is held in the hand by an observer whilst a big electric current is applied such that the observer is forced to drop it; yelling expletives. If the observer is an average human h/she will likely conclude that there has been an addition of HEAT but those of your school might instead yell “Oh gosh; what a lot of thermal energy”. The latter possibility is because you would likely determine that the increase in thermal energy arises because the bulk of the electrical losses involved are to be defined as HEAT, but yet there is no HEAT in the test piece.

    However an ordinary human would conclude that the electricity loss (ignoring any minimised supply losses) has resulted in heating of it. But, rather than call it the net electricity loss, you call it HEAT, which is a loss of its true identity.

    The same applies to the earlier example of net absorption of EMR. You say that it is not EMR but HEAT, such that the true identity of net absorbed EMR is lost.

    Why not properly identify the energy source(s)?
    Why have conflict with for example the following long established thingies?
    Specific HEAT, HEAT capacity, Sensible HEAT, Latent HEAT, HEAT transfer…
    For example: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-capacity-d_338.html

  294. suricat says: July 16, 2014 at 1:46 am

    Will Janoschka says: July 15, 2014 at 2:57 am

    (“Thanks Ray for the article,”)

    “Only too glad that I was in the right ‘ball park’.”

    (“Some murmers that the condensation multi-merzation in clouds takes hunderds of steps while continually reversing within the cloud. No sane folk hang around in clouds!”)

    “Water has no other option than to “hang around in clouds” until it precipitates to the surface. Diurnal forcing to cloud tops is the most obvious reason I can think of for the production of these ‘micro-droplet’ molymers/dimers, but I presume that cloud base may also provide a means for the evolution of molymerisation.”

    Water may be sane or not, but certainly not stupid enough to be a “folk in a45trrrrrrrrrrrrctual cloud”!

    “One point to considder, how hard is it for a WV molecule to escape a dimer? My suspicion is that a (2) H2O molecule would need ‘twice’ the energetic excitation required to evaporate/eject a molecule from a ‘gob’ (larger mass) of water (reactionary forces must be greatly reduced for a dimer).”
    Just WAGS her Roy! I was wondering of some function of energy with amount of expansion!

    (“With simple leaves the structure allows a complete phase change and only a O2 and lotsa momomer H2O to be expired at higher than atmospheric pressure. The 2ev wave packets help a lot.”)

    “I think you confuse a plant’s consumption of ‘water’ (H2O) with its consumption of ‘carbon dioxide’ (CO2).
    AFAIK, the ‘electron train’ digests hydrogen and releases oxygen in ‘atomic form’ (a single atom) when photosynthysising water. Carbon digestion of CO2 during photosynthysis releases ‘molecular’ (a ‘two atom molecule’) oxygen.
    Do you suggest that the ‘electron train’ that excretes ‘O’ may also generate ‘monomers of H2O’?
    Have you considered ‘respiration’ during the ‘other half’ of the diurnal cycle?”

    Again only WAGS. Seems a leaf’s only desire is to make more leaf! Huh, whoda thunk it!
    From the Forestry dept GeoChemist, who also hangs about the welding shop.

    The “photo” part of photosynthesis only involves H2O reduction, he calls “ripping the water molecule apart”, in what would be very exothermic, if not for the conversion of other water molecules to latent heat, only during daylight. For an 8″ oak, 100 gallons per day. The other CO2 reduction is done on demand by other enzymes. He seem to have nothing to sell, and no reason to fool anyone, except for the “who is gonna go get more beer?” Beer consumption seems to be a function of the enthusiasm of the argument! We are all guilty!

    Thank you, Ray. -will-

  295. “folk in a45trrrrrrrrrrrrctual cloud”! Kitten edit, kitten may be smarter than all of us!

  296. Roger,
    You being a wordsmith, can you parse this indicating all ambuguities, I cannot :
    “Beer consumption seems to be a function of the enthusiasm of the argument!”
    Sorry for such poor construction!

  297. lgl says:

    Ben
    I didn’t because unless it makes “The overwhelmingly dominant inputs are solar SW and GHG LW” not true, it was a diversion attempt. Bring in the numbers.