Hockey Schtick: CO2 does what exactly?

Posted: September 12, 2014 by tchannon in atmosphere, Natural Variation, ozone

Oh the irony!
Cutting CO2 emissions is…

 

And

Yes, that’s right, deadly man-made CO2 is the largest cooling agent of the stratosphere as demonstrated by this computer-modeled representation of stratospheric cooling rates:

Image

Image from blog article, originally in E M Smith’s article chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/le-chatelier-and-his-principle-vs-the-trouble-with-trenberth/

Below the Tropopause convection rules. Above it, radiative heat transport rules. Right off the bat, we have a big clue about why AGW (human caused ‘Global Warming’) is based on errors. The belief that radiative forcing at ground level ‘matters’ is simply shown a fantasy by the existence of the Troposphere. BY DEFINITION, it is convection, evaporation, condensation, clouds and rain that matter in the Troposphere. But lets look at that graph some more and pick up some interesting bits.

Only modelling, does show a null below the CO2, blocked channel.

I don’t buy the CFC argument, problem of lack of direct data where as usual there is lots of assertion but gaining hard data is somehow a step too hard. Looks to me more like the classic of PhD noticing something and getting the panics, we are all going to die. Seems rather likely ozone varies but we have no historic data. Dobson got the panics as I indicated last year, now’t like a pair of newspaper articles to show attitude change ,  here (updated post with most broken links repaired).

Also note the reported supposed recovery of Antarctica Ozone just happens to be as Antarctic ice is being awkward. What really causes what? I’m also mindful of radiation wavelength changing with temperature, cold Antarctica changes the rules.

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. wayne says:

    No seriously Tim, I do need to change some of the software I am currently writting and that code parallels what operates as standard averaged atmospheres of other bodies much as that link given above for the US76SA. This has highlighted something I missed from the many papers, that they explicitly redefine ‘g’ as g = |g| dropping the negative and further the ‘L’ is not the lapse rate which is easy to assume but instead the temperature per altitude gradient which is negative while the lapse rate which is the negative of the normally negative gradiant in tropospheres. It is also easily to assume their g0′ is gravitational acceleration but the exponent should be unitless and it isn’t if using g. They also have redefined g’ as the joules needed to raise one kg one geostatic meter and that brings the units into line even though the values of g0 and g0′ are identical.

    Learn something new every day.

  2. @Will Janoschka, September 26, 2014 at 3:33 am

    I get much (perverse) amusement from debating ClimAstrologists. After a while they realize the facts are not on their side and one gets banned along with one’s wife and one’s dog. I don’t mind being a punchbag on Alarmist blogs as it should be good for them to realize that there are holes in their theories. They can dish it out but they can’t take it when the punchbag turns into a sparring partner who counters their left jab with a right hook.

    Appell banned me and other skeptics from his “Quark Soup” with the result that traffic on the site plummeted!

    For a while I was able to conduct a civil dialog with John Cook at SKS but he eventually became unhinged. He went much further than just blocking me; he expunged some comments after they had been responded to! Unfortunately for him the internal communications at SKS were hacked so well that the comments from several skeptics were recovered. I wrote an essay following this incident that I hope will cause a chuckle or two:
    http://www.gallopingcamel.info/docs/DeletedCamel.doc

    Another site that banned me is “Brave New Climate”. This I regret given my respect for Barry Brook and his ideas on nuclear power. At one point we were getting along so well that he permitted a guest post:
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/15/solar-power-in-florida/

    A month later Barry published a rant claiming the scientific base for CAGW was as solid as Newtownian mechanics or gravitation. That really ticked me off:
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/

    Shortly after I was banned with a “Good Riddance” farewell from “Ms. Perps” (Marxist shrew).

    Similar experiences with Scott Mandia, Dana Nucitelli (did I get the spelling right?), Joe Romm and several others.

    What I love about Tallbloke is that though we often disagree it is done in a good natured way and most of us are prepared to “fess up” when we get it wrong.

    I can’t think of a single instance when a ClimAstrologist named above admitted to being wrong. Compare the infallible Michael Mann (inverted Tiljander sediments) to Albert Einstein who cheerfully discussed his “Greatest Mistake”.

  3. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    September 26, 2014 at 11:47 am

    The ELR (atmospheric temperature profile) is NOT caused by acceleration.

    I dispute the derivation of the equation and the value of c. But I think we agree that:
    Lapse Rate ( LR ) = T/h = g/c
    dimensional analysis confirms it:
    T/h = K/km
    g/c = g x 1/c c = J/Kkg
    = m/s^2 x kgK/J J = kgm^2/s^2
    = m/s^2 x kgK x s^2/kgm^2
    =K/m

    c = specific heat. This does not depend on T
    So LR = T/h = constant x g
    g does not depend on T, so I conclude that:
    T/h is directly proportional to g
    g causes T/h
    LR is caused by gravity, which is an acceleration.
    LR is caused by acceleration

    How does gravity cause LR?

    The consensus say:

    g > pressure(p) hydrostatic equilibrium
    p > T gas laws, adiabatic expansion
    I say gas laws cannot be applied to atmos.( no walls)
    Also this analysis ignores radiation/photons

    I analyse like this:

    g > p
    p > rho ( density )
    rho > optical depth (o.d)
    o.d. > T Beer/Lambert Law, Kinetic energy theory (KET)

    That include radiation in the analysis but not the gas law. KET depends on laws of motion.

    Any use of gas law to understand the properties of the atmos. is wrong.

  4. Roger Clague says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    September 25, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    There will be a small correction due to the fact the g is slightly smaller at 10,000 m, but this will be minor. If g changes by 0.3%, then final speed will change by a similar (but smaller amount). This correction is almost certainly less than a few m/s.

    v^2 = u^2 +2gs
    = 0 + 2 x 0.003 x 10 x 10 000
    = 600
    v = 25m/s

    I show the effect the height of the atmos. ( not a correction ) is 25m/s.

    Your total surface v = 450m/s

    25/450 = 6%

    GHE = 33/290 = 11%

    So the atmos. height effect is 55% of the GHE.

  5. gallopingcamel says: September 27, 2014 at 6:14 am

    @Will Janoschka, September 26, 2014 at 3:33 am

    “I get much (perverse) amusement from debating ClimAstrologists. After a while they realize the facts are not on their side and one gets banned along with one’s wife and one’s dog. I don’t mind being a punchbag on Alarmist blogs as it should be good for them to realize that there are holes in their theories.”

    Peter,
    Not theories, not even conjecture, sloppy fantasy. The total knowledge of all the climate experts in useful units is one thimbleful of Glenfiddich. Not even enough for a slight ponder. The rest of the earthlings have many litres, but the folk that designed and constructed this Earth, keep the distillery for themselves. Much to ponder.

  6. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: September 27, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Seems I have to repeat this countless times:

    THE DALR (g/c) SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TOTAL ATMOSPHERE.

    It is only valid for the internal temperature of rising and sinking parcels of air.
    Anyone claiming anything else is just clueless.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/330402/lapse-rate

  7. “gas laws cannot be applied to atmos.( no walls)”

    I think one can say that gravity acts just as a ‘wall’ would in so far as it limits the free movement of the constituent molecules within the atmosphere.

    However, that limiting of free movement is spread across the full depth of the atmosphere and so its effect arises not at any specific height but at every point from the ground upwards to a different extent.

    It is the different effect at each height which gives rise to the DALR and the DALR is a measurement of the rate at which that gravitational ‘wall’ causes a reduction in pressure with height.

    Naturally that rate of rate of reduction in pressure with height is also tied to the amount of atmospheric mass held within the gravitational ‘wall’.

    Thus one must consider mass and gravity together with the level of insolation passing through and those three parameters alone then give density, pressure and the rate of decline in pressure with height.

    The gas laws then do apply within the atmosphere as a whole.

    The radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect of the internal (non radiative) thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

  8. “So the atmos. height effect is 55% of the GHE.”

    and:

    “I show the effect the height of the atmos. ( not a correction ) is 25m/s.”

    I think the atmospheric absorption from the surface by conduction and the subsequent convection is 100% of the GHE.

    Have you considered the delay inherent in the progress of the first convective cycle i.e between the first parcel of air uplifting and that same first parcel of air being returned to the surface?

    I guess it would be way more trhan 25m/s.

    The GHE is entirely a result of a delay in the transmission of incoming solar energy through the atmosphere before it is released back to space. That delay is a result of conduction and convection rather than radiation.

  9. Stephen Wilde says: September 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    “The radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect of the internal (non radiative) thermodynamics of the atmosphere.”

    What “thermodynamics of the atmosphere” are you writing of? Radiative exitance is the only way of dispatching entropy generated by all atmospheric processes from cold atmosphere to colder space? A side effect? It is all that keeps the atmosphere from overheating!

    Stephen Wilde says: September 27, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    (“So the atmos. height effect is 55% of the GHE.”
    and:
    “I show the effect the height of the atmos. ( not a correction ) is 25m/s.”)

    “I think the atmospheric absorption from the surface by conduction and the subsequent convection is 100% of the GHE.”

    Would you please identify identify what you mean by “GHE”? What does that have to do with CO2?

    “Have you considered the delay inherent in the progress of the first convective cycle i.e between the first parcel of air uplifting and that same first parcel of air being returned to the surface?
    I guess it would be way more than 25m/s.”

    What year was the first convective cycle? Why is this process not continual (no delay)?

    “The GHE is entirely a result of a delay in the transmission of incoming solar energy through the atmosphere before it is released back to space. That delay is a result of conduction and convection rather than radiation.”

    Would you please identify identify what you mean by “GHE”? Why is this process not continual (no delay)? Your fantasy is no part of this physical!

  10. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:43pm, 2:51pm: “..gas laws then do apply within the atmosphere…”

    Once again Stephen, take a look at any weather station showing density, pressure and temperature measurements. Observe that the readouts do NOT apply p=density*R*T which is the ideal gas law.

    “…radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect…”

    Once again Stephen, the top post picture was constructed entirely from radiation calculations and results are confirmed by radiosonde test. Conduction and convection had no influence on the top post picture. This is because the commonly called GHE in any atmosphere is calculated as a result of its optical depth and not a result of convection and conduction calculations.

  11. Roger Clague says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I think one can say that gravity acts just as a ‘wall’ would in so far as it limits the free movement of the constituent molecules within the atmosphere

    Yes gravity holds the atmosphere in place

    However, that limiting of free movement is spread across the full depth of the atmosphere and so its effect arises not at any specific height but at every point from the ground upwards to a different extent.

    You make my point. The way gravity acts on the atmosphere is entirely unlike the way a wall acts.

    gravitational ‘wall’ causes a reduction in pressure with height

    Walls don’t cause a reduction in pressure. They are pressure. Pressure doesn’t vary with height in a container.

    Thus one must consider mass and gravity together with the level of insolation passing through and those three parameters alone then give density, pressure and the rate of decline in pressure with height.

    Mass and gravity cause pressure. Yes by hydrostaic Equilibrium
    But pressure does not cause temperature gradient ( consider the oceans )
    Gravity causes the gradient. No need for gas law.

    The radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect of the internal (non radiative) thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

    Radiative fluxes cause the internal thermodynamics, such as LR and hence convection.

  12. “Gravity causes the gradient. No need for gas law.”

    The gas laws incorporate the effect of gravity by reducing pressure with height (increase in volume).

    “Radiative fluxes cause the internal thermodynamics, such as LR and hence convection”

    Incoming radiation starts the process but the internal thermodynamics involving conduction and convection (related to density which is a function of mass and ghravity) create the radiative fluxes WITHIN the atmosphere which includes the two way radiative fluxes between surface and atmosphere.

    “But pressure does not cause temperature gradient ( consider the oceans )”

    It does for gases because the low initial density allows a huge volume response to insolation changes. You can’t apply the same rules to lioquids or solids. Hence the GAS Laws.

  13. Roger Clague says: September 27, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    Stephen Wilde says: September 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm
    (“I think one can say that gravity acts just as a ‘wall’ would in so far as it limits the free movement of the constituent molecules within the atmosphere”)

    “Yes gravity holds the atmosphere in place”

    (“However, that limiting of free movement is spread across the full depth of the atmosphere and so its effect arises not at any specific height but at every point from the ground upwards to a different extent.”)

    “You make my point. The way gravity acts on the atmosphere is entirely unlike the way a wall acts.”

    (“gravitational ‘wall’ causes a reduction in pressure with height”)

    “Walls don’t cause a reduction in pressure. They are pressure. Pressure doesn’t vary with height in a container.”

    (“Thus one must consider mass and gravity together with the level of insolation passing through and those three parameters alone then give density, pressure and the rate of decline in pressure with height.”)

    What kind of a wee container do you have? Consider a closed container 5 km tall, skinny insulated, no heat transfer latterly, no convection, no radiation, only gravitational attraction. Measure absolute pressure, temperature top and bottom. Why the differences? What keeps both pressure and temperature from spontaneously reaching the same pressure, temperature everywhere?

    “Mass and gravity cause pressure. Yes by hydrostaic Equilibrium But pressure does not cause temperature gradient ( consider the oceans )Gravity causes the gradient. No need for gas law.”

    The gas laws (not ideal) determine the temperature vs pressure for each species. If He were the gas it would have increasing temperature with decreasing pressure

    (“The radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect of the internal (non radiative) thermodynamics of the atmosphere.”)

    “Radiative fluxes cause the internal thermodynamics, such as LR and hence convection.”

    Please demonstrate any of this fantasy? as long as the gas is everywhere at radiative equilibrium, all radiative flux passes through without any thermodynamic effect. Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation (gas at equilibrium) must apply!

    In the troposphere the pressure created by gravitational attraction places additional constraints on degrees of freedom of each molecule 3 more for monotonic gases, 5 more for diatomic and gases with no dipole moment, and 6 more for most triatomic gases like H2O. In the stratosphere the pressure is so low that the additional constraints disappear and only gravitational attraction constrains the molecule to its very own elliptical orbit of the Earth’s mass. Sometimes, like molecules cluster to the same obit, giving indications of phase change.

  14. wayne says:

    @ Roger Clague: September 27, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Roger, shouldn’t your 0.003 be 1.003 if you are changing g’s value by 0.3% and comparing?

    I come up with 447.88 instead of 447.21. Not much difference as Tim was pointing out.

    The way you are computing it reduces g from 9.8 to 0.0294 m/s^2 and then you would have an velocity of about 24.5 m/s. I fail to see your further points.

    Yes hydrostatics is what you need to describe and predict within atmospheres where the gas law tells you little across vertical levels in atmosphere due to gravity’s effects but still the gas laws apply at each point at least in the tropospheres or are you saying the gas laws are completely invalid within atmospheres at a given point? I think we agree that understanding radiation is vital at the surface and above the troposphere but hydrostatics handles the internal radiation itself, the heat capacities and at high altitudes even the composition (mol. wt. therefore specific heat) change with height so the hydrostatic balances change accordingly.

    And what ‘wall’ having to do with gravity? You completely lost me there.

  15. wayne says:

    [MODS] This article is still thinking current comments are on page1. Is it hard to fix?

  16. Trick says: September 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    Stephen 2:43pm, 2:51pm:( “..gas laws then do apply within the atmosphere…”)

    “Once again Stephen, take a look at any weather station showing density, pressure and temperature measurements. Observe that the readouts do NOT apply p=density*R*T which is the ideal gas law.”

    So what?

    (“…radiative fluxes present within the atmosphere should then be regarded merely as a side effect…”)

    “Once again Stephen, the top post picture was constructed entirely from radiation calculations and results are confirmed by radiosonde test. Conduction and convection had no influence on the top post picture. This is because the commonly called GHE in any atmosphere is calculated as a result of its optical depth and not a result of convection and conduction calculations.”

    How nice! The LBL absorption characteristics have nothing to do with thermal radiative flux transfer through an atmosphere in radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation (gas at equilibrium) must apply!
    Please show the correct calculations from that database to demonstrate the true radiative effects of this atmosphere. Namely the manner to replace thermal radiative flux from the poorly emissive surface to the much more effective radiator to space the atmosphere, with WV!

  17. Let’s get back to the original question posed by E.M. Smith:
    “CO2 does what exactly?”

    Nikolov and Zeller’s “Unified Theory of Climate” says that gas composition is unimportant; pressure and TSI are the primary determinants of planetary surface temperatures.

    N&Z based their analysis on an energy balance calculated at the surface of rocky planets. If they are right their equations should apply at all altitudes on all bodies even if there is no rocky surface, so I applied them to the gas giants and found they worked there too:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/unified-theory-of-climate/

    While the N&Z equations were able to predict temperature in planetary tropospheres they failed dismally in the stratosphere so I started looking for a theory to include that. It did not take long to find the work of Robinson & Catling which accurately models temperatures throughout the troposphere, tropopopause and to the top of the stratosphere. The R&C model does not cover the Mesosphere but it could be extended to do that.
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    Currently I am using engineering software (Quickfield) to reproduce the R&C model. Quickfield was able to reproduce the work of Vasavada and the Diviner LRE measurements of lunar surface temperature with great precision but it will it explain the temperature gradients in planetary atmospheres?
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

    The N&Z and R&C models are in good agreement in planetary tropospheres but diverge elsewhere:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    It seems to me that N&Z were on the right track when they denided the effect of CO2. R&C theory relies on pressure as the primary determinant of pressure in the troposphere but not in the stratosphere where radiation is the doninant mode of energy transfer. As a consequence they are able to explain the anomalous lapse rate in the Venusian troposphere:

    Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

  18. Ooops! More of my careless mistakes. This is how that last paragraph was supposed to read:

    It seems to me that N&Z were on the right track when they denied the effect of CO2. The R&C model relies on pressure as a primary determinant of temperature in the troposphere but not in the stratosphere where radiation is the dominant mode of energy transfer. As a consequence they are able to explain the anomalous lapse rate in the Venusian stratosphere:

    Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

  19. Trick says:

    Will 6:13pm: “So what?”

    I understand Will has a hard time with this science. If the weather station data doesn’t follow ideal gas law (IGL), then IGL does not apply in the total atmosphere. Simple text book logic concepts as this often elude Will as demonstrated in comments.

    “Please show the correct calculations from that database to demonstrate the true radiative effects of this atmosphere.”

    Pull the 1995 paper in JGR referenced in the top post Will. I do understand that the radiative transfer concepts will be difficult for you – if you apply yourself and read it slowly, they will become more clear.

    ******

    Stephen 5:42pm: “…conduction and convection (related to density which is a function of mass and ghravity) create the radiative fluxes…”

    Energy cannot be created nor destroyed Stephen, except in your imagination.

    The top post picture results were computed with only radiative transfer considered; meaning the picture was constructed accurately without need for considering convective and conductive energy transfer and the results are shown to agree with radiosonde test. This is confirmed with gov. & private remote sensing working just fine in windy conditions.

  20. Trick says:

    gallopingcamel 8:59am, 3:56pm: “It seems to me that N&Z were on the right track when they denied the effect of CO2. The R&C model relies on pressure as a primary determinant of temperature in the troposphere..”

    This is not consistent with R&C paper gc. My bold:

    R&C model of atmosphere optical depth relies both on the pressure(z) and optical effect of CO2 et. al. gas in optical thick tropospheres: “`Atmospheric structure’ is usually taken to mean an average vertical temperature profile, which provides fundamental information about how physical and chemical processes change with altitude….Our model uses a known power law between pressure (p) and the grey infrared optical depth of tau IR proportional p^n (ref. 10).”

    Since the basic radiative transfer science in R&C model SI was used in 1995 to construct the accurate top post picture, an interesting test of N&Z model would be that it also be able to reproduce the top post results which agree with those found by radiosonde.

    R&C conclusion pressure thinning below about ~0.1bar becoming transparent to thermal radiation despite the difference in compositions should not be confused with the temperature profile dependence on pressure AND composition IN thick atmospheres as shown in the SI, particularly eqn.s S12 to S16 and those subsequent.

  21. Eric Barnes says:

    Trick 4:33 pm :
    “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed Stephen, except in your imagination.

    The top post picture results were computed with only radiative transfer considered; meaning the picture was constructed accurately without need for considering convective and conductive energy transfer and the results are shown to agree with radiosonde test. This is confirmed with gov. & private remote sensing working just fine in windy conditions.”

    Complete whiff Trick. Are you purposely trying to not understand that radiative transfer cannot be considered without conduction and convection?

    Again with the energy created/destroyed? Purposely misrepresenting Stephen’s position because you can’t break out of your “only radiation matters” paradigm.

    Sigh.

  22. Trick says:

    Eric Barnes 5:47pm: Pretty weak retort Eric as is unsupported – actually pressure (left ordinate of top post picture) as part of optical depth matters in addition to radiation of species in atm. – Eric can do much better. See R&C SI. Read & learn. Just text book science.

    The paradigm is not MY “only radiation matters” paradigm either. The paradigm is Clough & Iacono 1995 JGR radiative transfer method line by line (LBLRTM) analysis top post picture. Read their paper. Supported by many confirmatory papers – a couple of which I posted above – and test. And atmospheric operations by gov. and private entities that work as expected in windy or calm conditions. Not even a nice contributory try Eric.

    Of course free convection and free conduction operate as usual in the atm., sigh; still LBLRTM is the test confirmed analysis method.

  23. Trick says: September 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm
    Long ago:(( “Once again Stephen, take a look at any weather station showing density, pressure and temperature measurements. Observe that the readouts do NOT apply p=density*R*T which is the ideal gas law.”))

    Will 6:13pm: (“So what?”)

    “I understand Will has a hard time with this science. If the weather station data doesn’t follow ideal gas law (IGL), then IGL does not apply in the total atmosphere. Simple text book logic concepts as this often elude Will as demonstrated in comments.”

    Only Trick would attempt to apply that IGL to the Earth’s atmosphere. Only Trick thinks this atmosphere is anywhere close to an ideal gas! Weather stations do not measure density!

    (“Please show the correct calculations from that database to demonstrate the true radiative effects of this atmosphere.”)

    “Pull the 1995 paper in JGR referenced in the top post Will. I do understand that the radiative transfer concepts will be difficult for you – if you apply yourself and read it slowly, they will become more clear.”

    The LBL absorption characteristics have nothing to do with thermal radiative flux transfer through an atmosphere in radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation (gas at equilibrium) must apply! The Clough and Iacono (95) paper is deliberate nonsense. I saled for “correct” calculations, you refer to nonsense! The units fir the RH axis are K/(day cm^-1). Does anyone know what that may possibly mean, certantly you do not? Since when can any radiosonde measure cooling rate? The satellites measure only radiance in a particular direction never radiative exitance. None of the computer models have ever been verified as you claim. All of your claims are but personal fantasy. Complete whiff Trick.

  24. Roger Clague says:

    wayne says:
    September 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    @ Roger Clague: September 27, 2014 at 11:38 am

    are you saying the gas laws are completely invalid within atmospheres at a given point?

    Yes.

    And what ‘wall’ having to do with gravity? You completely lost me there.

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

    “The ideal gas law can also be derived from first principles using the kinetic theory of gases, in which several simplifying assumptions are made, chief among which are that the molecules, or atoms, of the gas are point masses, possessing mass but no significant volume, and undergo only elastic collisions with each other and the sides of the container in which both linear momentum and kinetic energy are conserved.”

    In the atmos. there are no “collisions with …the sides of the container…”

    The atmos. is constrained by gravity, an acceleration field.

    The suggestion is that gravity in the atmos. act like the walls of a container. I think that is unrealistic, unphysical and not reasonable.

    THis why Manabe and Strickler (1964) do not use gas laws. They use an optical law which is independant of varying gravity. The atmos behaves more like the gas in a star than gas in a container in a lab or factory.

    The p/rho gradient is exponential. g/h and T/h are both linear.

    If pressure caused LR there would be an LR in ther ocean

    Using hydrostatic equilibrium and IGL ignores the role of radiation.

    Trick says:

    If the weather station data doesn’t follow ideal gas law (IGL), then IGL does not apply in the total atmosphere.

    I agree. Can you give me an example of IGL calculating correctly any property of the atmos?

  25. Trick says:

    Roger 9:19pm: Yes. p=density*R*T is an ideal gas relationship among 3 thermodynamic variables, appropriate form IGL for an atmosphere which does not have a well defined volume. I have not ever run across a terrestrial atmospheric phenomenon that is a consequence of the departure of atmospheric gases from ideality. If someone has, I’d be interested.

    Have you ever been told cold air is denser than warm air? If so, now notice this statement is true only if qualified by the assertion that pressure is constant. The ideal gas law is applicable to an atmosphere any time the volume can be asserted as known.

    Here are two examples where IGL IS useful for an atmosphere when volume comes into focus, there probably are more:

    1) A meteorological parcel of atmospheric air. Now there is a volume. Fuzzy focus but IGL useful.

    2) The temperature of a distant planet at a certain height can be (albeit roughly) obtained by radio occultation effects determining density combined with hydrostatic pressure consideration. IGL useful in reasonably close agreement with radiosonde temperature data.

    Note none of this is important in the top post picture at all. The results entirely analyzed by radiative transfer and confirmed by radiosonde test. Knowing windiness of conditions is demonstrated not necessary for the top post analysis.

  26. ” Can you give me an example of IGL calculating correctly any property of the atmos?”

    Isn’t the so called ‘standard atmosphere’ exactly that?

    Weather station data simply record variations about the mean. They say nothing about the mechanisms which set that mean.

    “Of course free convection and free conduction operate as usual in the atm., ”

    Yes, indeed they do, and in the process they apply a negative system response to any radiative forcing element.

    “If pressure caused LR (lapse rate) there would be an LR in the ocean”.

    Not correct because the oceans are liquid so different rules apply.

    “The suggestion is that gravity in the atmos. act like the walls of a container. I think that is unrealistic, unphysical and not reasonable.”

    The walls of a container restrict the free movement of molecules and so does gravity. There is a difference in that the wall is at a specific location and the effect of gravity is spread across distance but the principle is the same.

    “Again with the energy created/destroyed? Purposely misrepresenting Stephen’s position because you can’t break out of your “only radiation matters” paradigm.”

    Trick does that a lot.

    “The R&C model relies on pressure as a primary determinant of temperature in the troposphere but not in the stratosphere where radiation is the dominant mode of energy transfer.”

    Yes, that is an interesting point. Radiative characteristics can distort the ‘natural’ lapse rate such as in Earth’s stratosphere but convection elsewhere must compensate for that if an atmosphere is to be retained.

    Anything that CO2 does is negated elsewhere within the system via circulation changes. The effect of CO2 is infinitesimal compared the the effect of soiar and oceanic variations.

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is dead.

  27. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:42pm: “Yes, indeed they do, and in the process they apply a negative system response to any radiative forcing element….Anything that CO2 does is negated elsewhere within the system via circulation changes.”

    Were these negating effects happening in the atmosphere as Stephen’s imagination represents, the yellow, red areas of the top post results labeled “CO2” would not exist. These CO2 effects do exist as analyzed in 1995, as measured by radiosonde.

  28. Roger Clague says: September 28, 2014 at 9:18 pm
    wayne says: September 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    (“are you saying the gas laws are completely invalid within atmospheres at a given point?”)

    “Yes.”

    Why for hevens sake? The gas laws apply to each species of gas anywhere/anywhen!

    (“And what ‘wall’ having to do with gravity? You completely lost me there.)

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

    ““The ideal gas law can also be derived from first principles using the kinetic theory of gases, in which several simplifying assumptions are made, chief among which are that the molecules, or atoms, of the gas are point masses, possessing mass but no significant volume, and undergo only elastic collisions with each other and the sides of the container in which both linear momentum and kinetic energy are conserved.””

    Why are you trying to replace “the gas laws” with some hypothetical ideal gas law?

    “In the atmos. there are no “collisions with …the sides of the container…”
    The atmos. is constrained by gravity, an acceleration field.
    The suggestion is that gravity in the atmos. act like the walls of a container. I think that is unrealistic, unphysical and not reasonable.”

    The gravitational increase in pressure by compression of the “force/weight” of above atmosphere is identical to the increase in pressure and temperature due to some decrease in volume of said “container” The gas laws for whatever gas in that container “must” apply! Essentially gravity causes a decrease in mean free path, along with an increase in temperature at lower altitudes.
    This is a thermostatic “state”, not a thermodynamic “process”!

  29. Trick says:

    Will 8:28pm: “Weather stations do not measure density!”

    Will again demonstrates not quite a solid grip on reality. See bottom left graph.

    http://extweb.west-cheshire.ac.uk/weather/daily_EP.asp

    “The Clough and Iacono (95) paper is deliberate nonsense.”

    Will loses all grip on reality.

  30. Trick says: September 28, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    (Stephen 10:42pm: “Yes, indeed they do, and in the process they apply a negative system response to any radiative forcing element….Anything that CO2 does is negated elsewhere within the system via circulation changes.”)

    “Were these negating effects happening in the atmosphere as Stephen’s imagination represents, the yellow, red areas of the top post results labeled “CO2″ would not exist. These CO2 effects do exist as analyzed in 1995, as measured by radiosonde.”

    The yellow, red areas are but a fabrication by computer model. Beside those yellow,red show increased cooling by stratospheric CO2 Radiosonde cannot measure what is indicated in that imaginary graph. Do you agree that increasing CO2 can only decrease temperature?

  31. wayne says:

    Then Trick, you seem to think they are directly measuring air’s density at each station so what instrument are they using to directly measure it.

    As far as I have read they may print a density graph, computed by P, T & wv by pretty good theory but still they don’t directly measure air density at each station… too hard, slow and expensive and probably would have higher error bars than the computed values on the average I was led to believe.

    One good aspect of computed density would be if it is ever used to further compute some other value it is a round-trip surrogate for the correct literal measurements of the P, T and wv or their ratios from whence it came.

    Am I also wrong?

  32. Trick says:

    wayne 3:12am: “..Trick, you seem to think they are directly measuring air’s density at each station…”

    I looked around that site, couldn’t find their density graph method expressed. Not really my interest. I would guess air density not directly measured at that site in the same sense thermometers don’t directly measure temperature. Graph results could be calibrated single instrument with several inputs or the output of several instruments combined as you write. Someone more interested could research.

  33. wayne says:

    Will: “CO2 Radiosonde cannot measure what is indicated in that imaginary graph.”

    Will seems correct again, radiosondes rarely probe above about 20 km and I’ve read they top out at a max of 30 km so where is this radiosonde data between and up to 63 km as implied by the graph at the top? Besides, I have never heard of radiosondes taking wavenumber spectrums. Maybe I missed something, maybe they used a single, special one to take their readings but everyone say radiosondeS so I don’t think so and don’t have time to back that up. Have to answer Roger Clague right now and its going to be lengthy.

  34. Trick says:

    wayne 3:58am: I got tired of writing out both radiosonde and satellite. I posted some of the Clough and Iacono 1995 paper top post picture confirmatory testing up thread here fyi:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/hockey-schtick-co2-does-what-exactly/comment-page-1/#comment-88179

  35. wayne says:

    Roger Clague, To me you have some pretty wild ideas and from what what you have been posting here don’t seem to have any lengthy background in atmospheric physics in general.

    I am going to address your views on Ideal Gas Laws and your concept that you must have “walls” to even make them possible. I’m going to tell you a little story that is when I became aware that walls of containers were not even necessary while all of the thermodynamic and IGL laws still operated as expected. You can ignore it, still disagree but I hope you can look into this and get the same enlightenment I received a couple years ago during a lengthy post and argument here at the Talkshop.

    The topic was whether a perfectly insulated one meter squared column of air in a gravitational field would always be isothermal without energy being added at the bottom and/or removed from the top so a few of the commenters here that were good at programming (myself one of them) went to the task of programming a simulation of a thousand molecules or atoms in action. All three of us ended up with very good and seemingly proper results. After some a thousand or ten thousand iterations it would stop to average mean velocities, temperature, pressure at various levels, compute to make sure the total energy was conserved, make sure momentum was being conserved and so on. You get the picture.

    One problem with the early versions was the collisions of the atoms with the “walls”! There you go, your walls. The problem being with such a high column this collision and the computing the exact contact time, since the atom always had overshot the “wall”, had to be reversed to the position exactly at the wall to compute the reflection and its new position. Well, this was taking up a huge amount of the cpu and besides was entering a large amount of round off error to boot.

    Then came my enlightenment.

    What if there were no walls at all, what if you just let the walls be invisible imaginary membranes and what if you could take an alternate view that in “Large Numbers” that for every atom leaving through a wall of that exact square meter column there of course would be exactly one other atom opposite that wall and at the same velocity entering the column. Would it give you exactly the same results as before when you were handling “wall collisions”. Turns out precisely the same results! Couldn’t tell the differences from the old and new versions. Perfect mass, energy, and momentum conservation.

    Of course that greatly sped the iterations letting us use more and more atoms in the column and all we had to worry of was collisions with the surface at the bottom and the top (that was rarely even hit). That was an interesting experiment but I learned that day that yes, I didn’t need to worry since IGL and gas mechanics still apply at any one point in an atmosphere which is just a gas, PV=nRT or T=P/ρ·Rs is correct in a bottle or not if you have accurate enough other parameters. So if I want the density at 22632 Pa and 216.65 K I just take 22632/(216.15*287.053) and get the correct 0.36392 kg/m³ and I don’t understand why you feel the IGL has fallen apart ‘out and up there wall-less’ in a gas when you feel if it were in a bottle that would different.

    See, I disagree with your entire line of thought but at least I told you exactly ‘why’.

  36. Eric Barnes says:

    Trick says:
    September 28, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    “Eric Barnes 5:47pm: Pretty weak retort Eric as is unsupported – actually pressure (left ordinate of top post picture) as part of optical depth matters in addition to radiation of species in atm. – Eric can do much better. See R&C SI. Read & learn. Just text book science.

    The paradigm is not MY “only radiation matters” paradigm either. The paradigm is Clough & Iacono 1995 JGR radiative transfer method line by line (LBLRTM) analysis top post picture. Read their paper. Supported by many confirmatory papers – a couple of which I posted above – and test. And atmospheric operations by gov. and private entities that work as expected in windy or calm conditions. Not even a nice contributory try Eric.

    Of course free convection and free conduction operate as usual in the atm., sigh; still LBLRTM is the test confirmed analysis method.”

    The “just textbook science” comment is priceless. Is this the same science that has predicted the 20 year pause in global temps? Or the one that predicted that manhattan would be underwater? LOL

    Tried to find a link to the paper you referenced but it appears to be pay-walled.

    Any real science (like an actual testable hypothesis related to convection/conduction/radiation?) that you’d like to make?

    Or will you just continue your usual hand waving and referring to pay-walled papers?

  37. oldbrew says:

    ‘A new paper published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics finds that the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is likely to be even smaller than previously thought.’

    Nicholas Lewis & Judith A. Curry (2014) The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates, Climate Dynamics 25 September 2014

    http://www.thegwpf.org/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/

  38. Trick says:

    Eric 7:07am: “Is this the same science that has predicted the 20 year pause in global temps?”

    No. Eric mistakes the top post picture being from a GCM.

    “Or the one that predicted that manhattan would be underwater?”

    No.

    “Tried to find a link to the paper you referenced but it appears to be pay-walled.”

    Occasionally one really does have to go over to the local college library Eric.

    “Any real science (like an actual testable hypothesis related to convection/conduction/radiation?) that you’d like to make?”

    The top post picture of the JGR article and the follow-up confirmatory testing speak for themselves.

  39. Trick says: September 29, 2014 at 2:05 am
    (Will 8:28pm: “Weather stations do not measure density! Please show the correct calculations from that database to demonstrate the true radiative effects of this atmosphere.”)

    “Will again demonstrates not quite a solid grip on reality. See bottom left graph.
    http://extweb.west-cheshire.ac.uk/weather/daily_EP.asp

    Trick references a blank graph!! They could have calculated density from temperature and dew point but they did not, but that is still not a measurement. Only Trick thinks a calculation is a measurement!

    (“The LBL absorption characteristics have nothing to do with thermal radiative flux transfer through an atmosphere in radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation (gas at equilibrium) must apply! The Clough and Iacono (95) paper is deliberate nonsense. I saled for “correct” calculations, you refer to nonsense!”)

    “Will loses all grip on reality.”

    Only Trick writes of “reality” but cannot define “reality”! To Trick, fantasy is reality!

    Trick says: September 29, 2014 at 3:57 am

    (wayne 3:12am: “..Trick, you seem to think they are directly measuring air’s density at each station…””

    I looked around that site, couldn’t find their density graph method expressed. Not really my interest. I would guess air density not directly measured at that site in the same sense thermometers don’t directly measure temperature.”

    Trick is interested only in spouting post modern textbook fantasy! Two bodies at thermal equilibrium with a third body are at thermal equilibrium with each other, “The definition of thermometric temperature”. They do indeed directly “measure” temperature.

    “Graph results could be calibrated single instrument with several inputs or the output of several instruments combined as you write. Someone more interested could research.”

    Only Trick wrote in this thread: September 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    ((“Once again Stephen, take a look at any weather station showing density, pressure and temperature measurements. Observe that the readouts do NOT apply p=density*R*T which is the ideal gas law.”))

    Trick is interested only in spouting post modern textbook fantasy! This fantasy needs no verification. Only Trick thinks a calculation is a measurement!

  40. Trick says: September 29, 2014 at 12:46 pm
    (Eric 7:07am: “Is this the same science that has predicted the 20 year pause in global temps?”)

    “No. Eric mistakes the top post picture being from a GCM.”

    Trick now can divine a mistake from an asked question!

    (“Or the one that predicted that manhattan would be underwater?”)

    “No.”

    (“Tried to find a link to the paper you referenced but it appears to be pay-walled.”)

    “Occasionally one really does have to go over to the local college library Eric.”

    Only someone with intent to defraud would reference something pay-walled in a blog!

    (“Any real science (like an actual testable hypothesis related to convection/conduction/radiation?) that you’d like to make?”)

    “The top post picture of the JGR article and the follow-up confirmatory testing speak for themselves.”

    They speak only of fantasy! Trick, you would not even recognize “real science (like an actual testable hypothesis related to convection/conduction/radiation”!

  41. Roger Clague says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 28, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    The walls of a container restrict the free movement of molecules and so does gravity. There is a difference in that the wall is at a specific location and the effect of gravity is spread across distance but the principle is the same.

    The atmos. has a gravity (g) gradient of 0.3% gradient.
    It is this g/h that causes the T/h.
    In a room-sized container there is no g/h gradient.
    IGL cannot and does not explain T/h

    http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html

    it has always interested me that, pressure gradient p/h is exponential and smooth
    But temp. gradient, T/h, is straight and kinked

    T/h = g/c

    I conclude

    1. pressure,hence hydrostatic eq. and IGL, is not the cause of T/h in the atmos.
    2. The causes of LR must be independent of pressure.
    3. Such as photons and a minimum conc. of H2O(g).
    4. The kinks are caused by changes in the active gas, hence change in c.
    4. The kink at the tropopause is caused by the water vapor conc.becoming insufficient.

    LR = g/c c H2O(g) = 2
    = 10/2
    = 5K/km
    DALR = 10K/km, wrong, never happens, even over deserts.
    I am aware of no calculation of how latent heat reduces to DALR to 6K/km.

    WillJ says
    Why are you trying to replace “the gas laws” with some hypothetical ideal gas law?

    The gas laws are great, in their place, the lab. and chemical works, not the atmos.

    Wayne says
    I don’t understand why you feel the IGL has fallen apart ‘out and up there wall-less’ in a gas when you feel if it were in a bottle that would different.</i

    gravity gradient in atmos. not in bottle.

    Evidence the atmos.does not obey gas laws

    According to IGL what happens when the sun goes?
    I would expect reduced T to cause reduced V and hence lower tropopause

    Click to access angeo-19-1001-2001.pdf


    fig.4.

    What actually happens? Tropause height continues to increase.

  42. Roger Clague says:

    Bad formatting, should be

    Wayne says
    I don’t understand why you feel the IGL has fallen apart ‘out and up there wall-less’ in a gas when you feel if it were in a bottle that would different.

    gravity gradient in atmos. not in bottle.

    Evidence the atmos.does not obey gas laws

    According to IGL what happens when the sun goes?
    I would expect reduced T to cause reduced V and hence lower tropopause

    Click to access angeo-19-1001-2001.pdf


    fig.4.

    What actually happens? Tropause height continues to increase.

  43. Roger,

    It is readily apparent that distortions in the lapse rate do occur and that leads you to say that the IGL does not apply.

    I say that for every distortion in one direction the atmospheric circulation changes to provide an equal and opposite distortion elsewhere so that the IGL does apply.

    Otherwise atmospheres could not be retained.

  44. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 29, 2014 at 12:46 pm:

    “The top post picture of the JGR article and the follow-up confirmatory testing speak for themselves.”

    Does it indeed? So enlighten us. Exactly what does it say? And more importantly, what does it not say?

  45. Tim Folkerts says:

    Gallopingcamel says: “I get much (perverse) amusement from debating ClimAstrologists.”

    I have to admit I can be like this — only in reverse. I find it bemusing (and occasionally annoying) how badly some skeptics misunderstand physics. Some examples include …
    * The ideal gas law can only be applied to a container with walls
    * The Trenberth diagram violates conservation of energy
    * The Trenberth diagram violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
    * The equilibrium state for a completely isolated column of gas in a planet’s gravitational field has a temperature gradient equal to the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
    * There’s no such thing as photons.
    * A planet illuminated from one side by the sun will be warmer than a similar planet illuminated by a uniform light source with the same total power

    It is unfortunate that BOTH sides of the discussion have contributors who let ideology trump science (which sometimes is because their ideological blinders, but also can be because their science is weak).

  46. wayne says:

    Roger Clague says:
    September 29, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Evidence the atmos.does not obey gas laws

    Ok, Roger, show the evidence to me. Just please note that I am speaking strictly of one point or small control volume within an atmosphere and not across vertical levels, then the IGL definitely does not apply but you can still apply it at two vertically different points. Hydrostatics applies across two points with a graviation field between, not the ideal gas laws.

    Once again, I laid my reasons out for you, if you have evidence as you are saying that you cannot even apply the IGL at one given point, please show me so I can learn, the last statistical mechanics course I sat through may have been wrong. Like when Tim Folkerts (with whom I disagree with sometimes in certain areas) showed me conclusively that in fact by definition that Lapse = −Gradient, I changed, that was my slip, I will accept if I am wrong. Will you?

  47. Trick says:

    Kristian 3:58pm: The abstract for exactly what the top post paper says producing the picture is right here; easy enough to find with the google string: Clough Iacano 1995

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

    The full paper will be in your local college library stacks or if not, available from the nice research desk assistant librarian on interlibrary loan. I posted a couple of radiosonde and satellite confirmatory test papers available on the net here:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/hockey-schtick-co2-does-what-exactly/comment-page-1/#comment-88179

    ******

    Stephen 3:45pm: Roger is correct, data shows the IGL in general does not apply in an atmosphere by weather station data I posted 2:05am. The top post picture, paper & confirmatory test papers shows that convection and conduction do not speed up or slow down to counter the effects of added IR active gas in an atmosphere as Stephen sometimes imagines.

    In certain limited situations where the volume can be reasonably well known, then the IGL in the form p=density*R*T can be fuzzily but usefully applied to an atmosphere as Poisson demonstrated last millennium and as I noted 10:15pm.

    More circles anyone? Or something new to talkshop about?

  48. wayne says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 29, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Roger,

    It is readily apparent that distortions in the lapse rate do occur and that leads you to say that the IGL does not apply.

    I say that for every distortion in one direction the atmospheric circulation changes to provide an equal and opposite distortion elsewhere so that the IGL does apply.

    Otherwise atmospheres could not be retained.

    My, my, what does this have to do with the ‘retention of atmospheres’?

    No Stephen. Just because the lapse rate averages out over seasons, diurnal periods and latitudes over years does not mean the blanket statement that ‘the IGL then applies to atmospheres’. No. The IGL applies at any one point even if the lapse rates are bent, warped or whatever. The IGL always apply in the right context (like ignoring van der Waal effects). The hydrostatic equations also always apply in the right context but then not if lapse rate segments are not linear (or very close within tolerance).

    Either the words you are using are wrong or your thoughts are wrong. It depends on where you are saying it can be applied to. This might be what (that is you) that Roger is bucking against. Do you even know what the hydrostatic equations are and when they apply to atmospheres instead of the ideal gas laws? It as if you are using ideal gas laws when you should be saying hydrostatic equations and sometimes vise versa. But you are not helping with your loose rambling scripts.

  49. Tim Folkerts says: September 29, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    (Gallopingcamel says: “I get much (perverse) amusement from debating ClimAstrologists.”)

    Peter,
    Here is one! Tim F. is smarter than most but,believes modern textbooks written by idiots. He clings to the post modern nonsense.

    “I have to admit I can be like this — only in reverse. I find it bemusing (and occasionally annoying) how badly some skeptics misunderstand physics.”

    Tim,
    The difference is that Peter is successful at it.

    “Some examples include …”
    * The ideal gas law can only be applied to a container with walls”

    How do you apply a gas law to a container? Your IGL applies to no known gas!

    “* The Trenberth diagram violates conservation of energy”

    Your Trenberth has power (flux) from the Sun and higher flux from the surface to space, dissipating surface sensible heat. He in addition shows even more flux from the atmosphere “to” the surface! He has no possible energy source for such flux. Trenberth’s cartoon attempts to create energy!

    “* The Trenberth diagram violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”

    2LTD concerns only spontaneous processes. The cartoon indicates spontaneous sensible heat flux in a direction of higher temperature.

    “* The equilibrium state for a completely isolated column of gas in a planet’s gravitational field has a temperature gradient equal to the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.”

    A spontaneous thermostatic state within a gravitational field as per Loschmidt. It is not a thermodynamic process. for such a process the atmosphere is considered isothermal with a non thermodynamic gradient.

    “* There’s no such thing as photons.”

    There is action upon absorption of an EMR wavelet. Some folks imagine what they call a “photon”, in transit, but like Albert, have no concept of what that may be. Al did discover the effect (action, or quantum).

    “* A planet illuminated from one side by the sun will be warmer than a similar planet illuminated by a uniform light source with the same total power”

    More of undefined “warmer”. Who has ever claimed such a thing but you? The Sun side is “measured” to have a higher temperature than the night side. Your averaging of temperature is always a misapplication of the mathematics of thermal electromagnetic flux.

    “It is unfortunate that BOTH sides of the discussion have contributors who let ideology trump science (which sometimes is because their ideological blinders, but also can be because their science is weak).”

    There is no science in post modern bull shit!

  50. wayne,

    I see no need to separate the Ideal Gas Law from hydrostatic equations.

    They are both aspects of the behavioiur of real atmospheres and it is their operation (via circulation changes) which balances incoming energy from the sun with outgoing energy to space.

  51. Roger Clague says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    September 29, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    You say I misunderstand physics>/i> to think

    The ideal gas law can only be applied to a container with wall

    In the K.E.T. derivation of IGL it is the walls that create the pressure by elastic rebounds.Can you explain how gravity acts like a wall?

    wayne says:
    September 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Hydrostatics applies across two points with a graviation field between, not the ideal gas law.

    I agree.

    you can still apply it [the gas law] at two vertically different points.

    The two vertical points will have “a gravitational field between”. So again, gas law does not apply.

    by definition that Lapse = −Gradient

    Only is you accept the LR is caused by the heated surface. I think the atmos. is heated from top down.
    T increase from tropopause. T/h is a positive incremental rate.

    Do you even know what the hydrostatic equations are and when they apply to atmospheres instead of the ideal gas laws?

    Hydrostatic always correct, IGL never correct

    The optical depth analysis uses pressure so is also wrong.

  52. Tim Folkerts says:

    Will says:“Your IGL applies to no known gas!”
    The IGL is a very useful approximation that applies amazing well to many gases in many conditions. If you want to go the route of “IGL applies to no known gas” then I could just as well say “Newton’s Laws apply to no know object”. Neither of these is useful for moving ahead.

    “The cartoon indicates spontaneous sensible heat flux in a direction of higher temperature.”
    No, the IR sensible heat flux is 356-333 = 23 W/m^2 from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. There is another 17 W/m^2 of sensible conduction from the warm surface to the cool atmosphere which heats the atmosphere and causes convection. There is also a large latent heat flux from warmer surface to cooler atmosphere.

    Nowhere is there a heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere.

    “Trenberth’s cartoon attempts to create energy! ”
    No. The net energy into either the surface or the atmosphere is ~ 0 W/m^2. The small differences (give or take 1 W/m^2) can be attributed to round off errors, experimental uncertainty, and/or small net warmer/cooling. An attempt to “create energy” would have a significant, clearly non-zero net flow into/out of some region.

    ” Some folks imagine what they call a “photon”
    And some folks image what they call an “electron”. Or imagine what they call an “electric field”. Or imagine what they call “energy”. Each of these “imagined” concepts are extremely useful for predicting the behavior of the real world. None of them have any more “reality” than a photon.

    “Who has ever claimed such a thing [about nonuniform lighting vs uniform lighting)] but you?
    This is the core of one of Joe Postma’s key arguments (a name familiar to many here). In effect, his argument requires the surface to have a low heat capacity during the day (so it warms up easily) and a low heat capacity at night (so it cools down slowly). It is refuted by (among many others) Tim C’s recent post on temperature profiles of the moon.

  53. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 29, 2014 at 5:36 pm:

    “Kristian 3:58pm: The abstract for exactly what the top post paper says producing the picture is right here; easy enough to find with the google string: Clough Iacano 1995

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

    The full paper will be in your local college library stacks or if not, available from the nice research desk assistant librarian on interlibrary loan. I posted a couple of radiosonde and satellite confirmatory test papers available on the net here:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/hockey-schtick-co2-does-what-exactly/comment-page-1/#comment-88179

    Thanks, but I’m sure you understand that this is not what I’m asking, Trick. I’m asking you to explain us all in your words what exactly it is that this particular figure that you keep referring to as what appears to be some kind of vindication of your position that CO2 somehow makes the surface of the Earth warmer by its radiative properties, what it actually says about the matter, and about the role of IR-active gases in the atmosphere (troposphere vs. stratosphere). And it would also be interesting to see you point out on what kind of natural processes this figure remains absolutely silent.

  54. Trick says:

    Kristian 8:08pm: The words in the paper abstract are exactly what I would use for precision. The paper abstract is easy enough to access and read. All natural processes are in the confirmatory testing I linked as the real atmosphere is the test site.

    If Kristian has a hidden agenda, just talk it out. It’s a talkshop.

  55. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, September 29, 2014 at 8:03 pm:

    “Will says:“Your IGL applies to no known gas!”
    The IGL is a very useful approximation that applies amazing well to many gases in many conditions. If you want to go the route of “IGL applies to no known gas” then I could just as well say “Newton’s Laws apply to no know object”. Neither of these is useful for moving ahead.”

    It’s impossible to move ahead on any subject, it seems, with Will. If there’s something he doesn’t perceive as right, it’s all a scam designed to fool the world’s population.

    ““The cartoon indicates spontaneous sensible heat flux in a direction of higher temperature.”
    No, the IR sensible heat flux is 356-333 = 23 W/m^2 from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere. There is another 17 W/m^2 of sensible conduction from the warm surface to the cool atmosphere which heats the atmosphere and causes convection. There is also a large latent heat flux from warmer surface to cooler atmosphere.

    Nowhere is there a heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere.”

    And still the ‘back radiation’ flux manages – ALL ON ITS OWN – to increase the temperature of (and hence the radiative energy flux OUT from) the surface. AS IF IT WERE a real heat flux. Like the solar one. Just look at the Earth energy budget diagrams. There’s NO help from ANY other flows of energy to accomplish the rise from 232 to 289K. It’s ONLY the ‘back radiation’ – just energy, but acting like heat. That’s pure magic right there!!

    ““Trenberth’s cartoon attempts to create energy! ”
    No. The net energy into either the surface or the atmosphere is ~ 0 W/m^2. The small differences (give or take 1 W/m^2) can be attributed to round off errors, experimental uncertainty, and/or small net warmer/cooling. An attempt to “create energy” would have a significant, clearly non-zero net flow into/out of some region.”

    The point is, Tim, there is only 165 W/m^2 coming in to the surface at any one time. From our (ONLY) external energy source, the Sun. So this is all the energy that is free to flow through the system (IN > OUT) at any one time. The climate establishment ignores this and simply invents more energy (much more energy) to make their radiative explanation of Earth’s mean surface temperature work. They’re strengthening the intensity of the original flux by setting up an internal amplification-by-reabsorption loop. All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.

  56. Kristian says:

    BTW, Tim, I’m sure you meant: “Nowhere is there a heat flux from the atmosphere to the surface.” I also didn’t see it …

  57. Graham W says:

    ” All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.”

    Delayed before it leaves though, and according to GHE theory, it’s the delaying that causes the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise have been (because energy in must equal energy out per unit time, if less energy out per unit time due to delay then temperature increases). The problem with that is the only source of energy in is the sun and with an atmosphere inbetween the surface and space there are now many, many ways for energy to get delayed, not just radiative. Conduction, convection, conversion to potential energy, conversion to kinetic energy, transfer through collision to bulk gases etc etc.

    Probably have all the terminology wrong. Basically the entire weather system is all powered by energy from the sun. This is a delay of energy out per unit time.

    So of the 33K difference or whatever it is, radiative effect can only be a part, surely.

    I dunno.

  58. Trick says:

    Will 1:08pm: “Trick references a blank graph!!”

    I’ll give you the white line for density is hard to see Will but just look closely. Zoom in if need be. Now the density graph has shifted position but I think Will can still find it.

    “Only Trick writes of “reality” but cannot define “reality”! To Trick, fantasy is reality!”

    Get a grip Will. Reality is the Clough & Iacono 1995 paper abstract link Will, the top post picture, both supported & confirmed by radiosonde and satellite testing. For fantasy try disney.com

    “Trick is interested only in spouting post modern textbook fantasy!…do indeed directly “measure” temperature.”

    Only the text book theory that is founded on principles, 1st law, 2nd law, Fourier conduction and Planck distribution. I do grant Will some purported text books do get lost in fantasy, the reader beware.

    A mercury thermometer measures the expansion/contraction of a pool of mercury; a mechanical thermometer that of a steel coil. Neither directly measure temperature, they are as I wrote both calibrated to read out in degrees just as the weather station readout for local air density is calibrated to read out kg/m^3.

  59. Kristian says:

    Graham W says, September 29, 2014 at 8:52 pm:

    “” All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.”

    Delayed before it leaves though, and according to GHE theory, it’s the delaying that causes the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise have been (because energy in must equal energy out per unit time, if less energy out per unit time due to delay then temperature increases).”

    No, that’s exactly what the rGHE hypothesis is NOT saying. The ‘delay’ is only in the actual warming/cooling of the surface which is a surface ‘heat capacity’ issue, not a radiative property of IR-active gases in the atmosphere issue.

    There is no physical restraint on the escape of thermal radiation from the surface according to the rGHE hypothesis, that’s the point. The atmosphere doesn’t reduce the OUTGOING radiative flux from the surface. Rather, the energy is returned to the surface through an internal amplifying loop. That’s when the extra warming occurs. Just look at the diagrams.

  60. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 29, 2014 at 8:27 pm:

    “Kristian 8:08pm: The words in the paper abstract are exactly what I would use for precision. The paper abstract is easy enough to access and read. All natural processes are in the confirmatory testing I linked as the real atmosphere is the test site.

    If Kristian has a hidden agenda, just talk it out. It’s a talkshop.”

    So you are not willing to state your case, Trick? Backing out, are we?

    You’re right. It’s a talkshop. So talk.

  61. Graham W says:

    Yeah, it’s redirected back down, sideways, upwards, every which way but Sunday. The net result is that the path the energy has to take to escape to space is longer overall than if the GHGs weren’t there. Hence it’s a delay. But there are other forms of delay which actually delay the energy leaving the system significantly longer.

  62. Kristian says:

    Graham W says, September 29, 2014 at 10:46 pm:

    “Yeah, it’s redirected back down, sideways, upwards, every which way but Sunday. The net result is that the path the energy has to take to escape to space is longer overall than if the GHGs weren’t there. Hence it’s a delay. But there are other forms of delay which actually delay the energy leaving the system significantly longer.”

    Where’s the delay, Graham? For the surface? The energy leaves the surface. Freely. No restriction. If it, upon entering the atmosphere, is radiated up, down or to the sides after this, how is this a delay for the energy leaving the surface in the first place? It is not a delay in outgoing IR that causes the surface to warm. It is ONLY energy originally being thermally emitted to the atmosphere by the surface returned from the atmosphere and reabsorbed by the surface that causes extra surface warming, according to the rGHE hypothesis. This is not a delay in cooling. This is extra heating!

    You know of course that convection is what governs the energy distribution and movement through the troposphere. Radiation and conduction don’t have a say in the matter. Convection effortlessly overrides every and any radiative/conductive attempt at perturbing the convective order of things in the troposphere. The fact that we have the steady global tropospheric lapse rate that we have on Earth is living proof of this fact. Radiation or conduction cannot change it. Conclusion, you need to suppress (‘delay’) convective transport of energy away from the solar-heated surface to affect the surface temperature. The atmosphere does this by virtue of its MASS, not its radiative properties.

  63. Tim Folkerts says: September 29, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    (Will says:“Your IGL applies to no known gas!”)
    “The IGL is a very useful approximation that applies amazing well to many gases in many conditions.”

    Any idealized concept is good for teaching complex properties of say “all” gas!
    It is the diliberate missapplication of such a concept to this physical that is harmfull, especially when the correct gas law for each species has already been measured!

    “If you want to go the route of “IGL applies to no known gas” then I could just as well say “Newton’s Laws apply to no know object”. Neither of these is useful for moving ahead.”

    It is the deliberate intent to confuse the complexity of this physical, that prevents anything useful.

    (“The cartoon indicates spontaneous sensible heat flux in a direction of higher temperature.”)

    “No, the IR sensible heat flux is 356-333 = 23 W/m^2 from the warm surface to the cooler atmosphere.”

    Warm, cool, net, with no definition. IR flux is never sensible heat until converted from EMR by the absorber of such flux. All radiated to space remains entropy. The cartoon indiates a 333W/m^2 flux added sensible heat to the surface. To be circulated as part of the fictious 356W/m2 This is the deliberate intent to confuse about any concept of electromagnetic flux and how it mat be generated. a violation of 2LTD!!

    “There is another 17 W/m^2 of sensible conduction from the warm surface to the cool atmosphere which heats the atmosphere and causes convection.”

    Warm, cool, heats, with no definition. Wind causes convection!

    “There is also a large latent heat flux from warmer surface to cooler atmosphere.”

    This adjustable latent flux converted to atmospheric sensible heat is the single is the single item that regulates temperature of all near earth.

    “Nowhere is there a heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere.”

    Here you contradict your above.

    (“Trenberth’s cartoon attempts to create energy! ”)

    “No. The net energy into either the surface or the atmosphere is ~ 0 W/m^2. The small differences (give or take 1 W/m^2) can be attributed to round off errors, experimental uncertainty, and/or small net warmer/cooling. An attempt to “create energy” would have a significant, clearly non-zero net flow into/out of some region.”

    That is definately not what your cartoon displays.

    (”Some folks imagine what they call a “photon”)

    “And some folks image what they call an “electron”. Or imagine what they call an “electric field”. Or imagine what they call “energy”. Each of these “imagined” concepts are extremely useful for predicting the behavior of the real world.”

    They an never accurately predict any behaviour in this physical. Behaviour must be measured, else all is just your fantasy!

    “None of them have any more “reality” than a photon.”

    Is reality the same as fantasy? I correctly described what is currently known of the concept of “photon” You wish to add your fantasy to this knowledge.

    (“Who has ever claimed such a thing (TF[about nonuniform lighting vs uniform lighting)]) but you?”)

    Lighing? Define “lighting”

    “This is the core of one of Joe Postma’s key arguments (a name familiar to many here). In effect, his argument requires the surface to have a low heat capacity during the day (so it warms up easily) and a low heat capacity at night (so it cools down slowly). It is refuted by (among many others) Tim C’s recent post on temperature profiles of the moon.”

    How is the Moon anything like the Earth?

  64. Trick says:

    Kristian 10:20pm: I have no separate case to state separate from the top post picture and the science in support as abstracted in the linked Clough & Iacono 1995 paper which you can read for yourself.

    11:06pm: “…You know of course that convection is what governs the energy distribution…”

    If that were the case the top post picture LBLRTM analysis would not compare favorably to radiosonde & satellite data within instrument error. The rest of Kristian’s comment thus is unsupported by the science in the top post picture and paper abstract.

    8:38pm: The all sky emission to surface 345 can’t be acting like your outdated concept of heat Kristian since it comes from a global Tmean cooler body than the surface. The 345.6 +/- 9 W/m^2 is just the sun’s original energy radiated by the mass of the global atmosphere spatial and temporal over about 10 years from CERES observations, plus rain/evaporation observed, plus observed thermals, and plus observed solar absorbed in atm. all incident on earth L&O surface.

    24+88+75+158=345

    All supported by the science in the top post picture as abstracted in the 1995 paper and improved ever since.

  65. Tim Folkerts says:

    Kristian “All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.”

    Let me make two suggestions that might help clarify things here.
    1) Once the sunlight gets absorbed, it is now the *Earth’s* energy, *not* the sun’s energy. Thermalized internal energy cannot be identified as to its source.
    2) Earth’s energy is not “free to escape”. It needs some mechanism that allows it to escape. If there is no mechanism for it it escape (or if the escape mechanisms are not as effective as the absorption mechanisms) , then energy builds up (and the surface gets warmer).

    So how can the energy possibly escape? Well thermal IR is one way. If there is no atmosphere (or an atmosphere that is transparent to IR), then thermal IR is “free to escape to outer space” at a rate (sigma)(epsilon)A T^4. If there is an atmosphere that can absorb/emit thermal IR, then the thermal IR is NOT free to escape, but will be greatly reduced because the atmosphere is much warmer than outer space (ie there is radiance from the atmosphere, so the overall loss is less than before). So for example, instead of the surface’s energy increasing by 240 W/m^2 (from sunlight) and losing 240 W/m^2 (thermal IR to space), the surface might be only losing 120 W/m^2 to cool clouds and not losing any energy directly to space. This means the surface will start to warm. There is no creation of energy occurring that would be violating the 1st law. The clouds are impeding the “optimal thermal IR escape”. (I like “impede” much better than “delay”.)

    For the real Earth, it is more complicated, because we would have to include conduction & convection & evaporation, but the principle is the same. The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up (*NOT* energy being created).

  66. Kristian says: September 29, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    Graham W says, September 29, 2014 at 8:52 pm:

    (” All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.””)

    (“Dlayed before it leaves though, and according to GHE theory, it’s the delaying that causes the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise have been (because energy in must equal energy out per unit time, if less energy out per unit time due to delay then temperature increases).”)

    “No, that’s exactly what the rGHE hypothesis is NOT saying. The ‘delay’ is only in the actual warming/cooling of the surface which is a surface ‘heat capacity’ issue, not a radiative property of IR-active gases in the atmosphere issue.”

    “There is no physical restraint on the escape of thermal radiation from the surface according to the rGHE hypothesis, that’s the point. The atmosphere doesn’t reduce the OUTGOING radiative flux from the surface. Rather, the energy is returned to the surface through an internal amplifying loop. That’s when the extra warming occurs. Just look at the diagrams.”

    The opposing radiance from the atmosphere does indeed limit surface radiative flux. That same radiative atmosphere replaces the surface with a radiative cross sectional area that is much more effective at radiating wast energy to space than the surface can. No surface radiative or heat energy transfered to or through the atmosphere is ever returned to the higher temperature surface by any means whatsoever. Your diagrams are trash.

  67. Graham W says:

    Thanks, I see what you’re saying. You have to understand I can only go by what I’ve learned up to this point. Mostly it is repetitively hammered home to me that less energy is leaving the top of the atmosphere in the wavelength bands at which CO2 absorbs/emits. Somehow this is presented as incontrovertible evidence that AGW is real. If less energy is getting out while the same is getting in, the planet must warm. It never made sense how this meant the SURFACE would get warmer.

    To be honest I just don’t see how the GHE makes sense in any of its forms.

    Definitely not if its meant that the redirected energy “extra warms” the surface!

    I thought I had finally cracked what they meant with the “energy delay” thing…again…

    …I dunno!

  68. Tim Folkerts says:

    Will says: “It is the diliberate missapplication of such a concept to this physical that is harmfull, especially when the correct gas law for each species has already been measured!”

    Interesting accusation. Can you point out where …
    1) the actually gas laws for any gas in the atmosphere is different from the IGL in a way that is important in climate science?
    2) and that deviation amounts to “deliberate misapplication”?
    (Of course, the condensation/evaporation of water is one important deviation from ideal behavior, but condensation/evaporation is explicitly included in climate science, so that does not fit.)

  69. Graham W says:

    I don’t know but it kind of seems like Tim F is agreeing with me. But not seeing that if what he says is true (from a radiative perspective) then it must also be true from the other perspective…ie there is only one source of ALL energy on the planet, ultimately…whether the energy exiting is thought of as “Earth energy” or “sun energy”…whatever energy is there is ultimately only there because of the sun. Well, mainly (geothermal). And that energy is used to drive all life on Earth and all weather systems and can get tied up in the bulk gases in all sorts of ways etc etc. All of this is a massive delay in that energy, which has only one input, in getting out of the system. So all this delay must equal higher temperatures. I mean if that’s the case with the radiative situation why won’t it be for everything else? And what creates the biggest delay and therefore biggest contribution to warming? The radiative process or “all life on Earth, weather, bulk gases…”?

    Hopefully some of this is making some sort of sense to someone who can speak proper physics.

  70. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 12:00 am
    (Kristian “All the while, the incoming from the Sun is always free to escape the surface again.”)

    “Let me make two suggestions that might help clarify things here.
    1) Once the sunlight gets absorbed, it is now the *Earth’s* energy, *not* the sun’s energy. Thermalized internal energy cannot be identified as to its source.
    2) Earth’s energy is not “free to escape”. It needs some mechanism that allows it to escape. If there is no mechanism for it it escape (or if the escape mechanisms are not as effective as the absorption mechanisms) , then energy builds up (and the surface gets warmer).”

    Indeed Sloar EMR converted to sensible heat will increase surface temperature with no exit flux.

    “So how can the energy possibly escape? Well thermal IR is one way. If there is no atmosphere (or an atmosphere that is transparent to IR), then thermal IR is “free to escape to outer space” at a rate (sigma)(epsilon)A T^4.”

    Indeed but always limited to a surface effective solid angle of one PI steradian.

    “If there is an atmosphere that can absorb/emit thermal IR, then the thermal IR is NOT free to escape, but will be greatly reduced because the atmosphere is much warmer than outer space (ie there is radiance from the atmosphere, so the overall loss is less than before). So for example, instead of the surface’s energy increasing by 240 W/m^2 (from sunlight) and losing 240 W/m^2 (thermal IR to space), the surface might be only losing 120 W/m^2 to cool clouds and not losing any energy directly to space.”

    From the surface 13 W/m^2 is radiated to space, another 19 W/m^2 is radiated to the 2/3 cloud cover in the 8-14 micron window. All other surface EMR flux is stopped by atmospheric opposing radiance. That same radiative atmosphere replaces the surface with a radiative cross sectional area that is much more effective at radiating wast energy to space than the surface can. No surface radiative or heat energy transfered to or through the atmosphere is ever returned to the higher temperature surface by any means whatsoever. .

    “This means the surface will start to warm. There is no creation of energy occurring that would be violating the 1st law. The clouds are impeding the “optimal thermal IR escape”. (I like “impede” much better than “delay”.) ”

    The atmosphere itself is the “optimal thermal IR escape”, The surface is not really required.

    “For the real Earth, it is more complicated, because we would have to include conduction & convection & evaporation, but the principle is the same. The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up (*NOT* energy being created).”

    Indeed and it is the variable WV latent heat converting to atmospheric sensible heat and dispatched via EMR to space that controls all temperatures near or on Earth. What controls WV? Nothing at all is required to build up.

  71. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 12:19 am
    (Will says: “It is the diliberate missapplication of such a concept to this physical that is harmfull, especially when the correct gas law for each species has already been measured!”)

    “Interesting accusation. Can you point out where …
    1) the actually gas laws for any gas in the atmosphere is different from the IGL in a way that is important in climate science?”

    Using the the entropy, enthalpy curves for 78% N2, 22% O2, plus the logarithimic pressure induced by gravity. The true static dry adiabatic lapse rate may be determined. add 0.25% WV (no condensation)the meterologic DLAR for any tropospheric altitude interval can be calculated. For higher WV initial conditions, the atmospheric EMR rate of dispatch of sensible heat is required. The atmosphere can supersaturate for a while. Expect very interesting weather.

    “2) and that deviation amounts to “deliberate misapplication”?
    (Of course, the condensation/evaporation of water is one important deviation from ideal behavior, but condensation/evaporation is explicitly included in climate science, so that does not fit.)”

    An ideal gas has no static lapse rate. This is the misapplication is exactly what drives nonsense like Green House Effect. Is that clear enough? There are many other examples of deliberate psudoscience.

  72. Trick says: September 29, 2014 at 9:39 pm
    (Will 1:08pm: “Trick is interested only in spouting post modern textbook fantasy!…do indeed directly “measure” temperature.”)

    “A mercury thermometer measures the expansion/contraction of a pool of mercury; a mechanical thermometer that of a steel coil.”

    This the definition of thermometric temperature. There is no other!
    “Neither directly measure temperature, they are as I wrote both calibrated to read out in degrees just as the weather station readout for local air density is calibrated to read out kg/m^3.”

    If you claim such you have no definition of temperature, and weather stations do not measure density.

    Trick says: September 29, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    “I have no separate case to state separate from the top post picture and the science in support as abstracted in the linked Clough & Iacono 1995 paper which you can read for yourself.”

    So you really have no case to state whatsoever!

    Kristian 11:06pm: “…You know of course that convection is what governs the energy distribution…”

    If that were the case the top post picture LBLRTM analysis would not compare favorably to radiosonde & satellite data within instrument error. The rest of Kristian’s comment thus is unsupported by the science in the top post picture and paper abstract.

    The nonsense in that picture do not even compare with what is measured by radiosonde or satelite or that data. What ever would be “K/(day cm^-1)? You have no clue as to what that picture may indicate.

    8:38pm: The all sky emission to surface 345
    n

  73. Tim Folkerts says:

    “An ideal gas has no static lapse rate.
    Agreed. No gas has a static lapse rate when at equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium requires constant temperatures. Only a small pocket of SKEPTICS hold the contrary view that the equilibrium condition is a thermal gradient..

    ” This is the misapplication is exactly what drives nonsense like Green House Effect.
    This misapplication drives some nonsense from a small group of skeptics, but this is NOT what drives the GHE. What drives the GHE is what you yourself said: “The opposing radiance from the atmosphere does indeed limit surface radiative flux. ” This opposing radiance means the surface sheds energy less effectively, which means it has to warm.

    The lapse rate does come into play, but this lapse rate is there because there is in general upward convective energy transfer through the troposphere. The models do not include a STATIC equilibrium lapse rate; they do often include a DYNAMIC lapse rate.

  74. Tim Folkerts says:

    “That same radiative atmosphere replaces the surface with a radiative cross sectional area that is much more effective at radiating wast energy to space than the surface can. “
    No. The theoretically best radiator is a blackbody. It is the best at absorbing incoming radiation (ie 100% of possible light is absorbed), and equivalently it is best at emitting outgoing radiation (ie 100% of possible light is emitted.

    A spherical blackbody surface at the altitude of the troposphere would have a larger radiance than the gas at the same temperature below it.

  75. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, September 30, 2014 at 2:42 am:

    “This opposing radiance means the surface sheds energy less effectively, which means it has to warm.”

    Hehe, here lies the deception that Tim keeps clinging to. Obfuscation of what’s REALLY being claimed at all costs.

    No, Tim. More INCOMING energy does not not make the surface shed its OUTGOING energy less effectively. Look at the diagram. Your outgoing flux INCREASES. It’s not diminished or hindered in any way. Quite the opposite. It increases, as a direct result of the reabsorption of its already emitted energy now coming back DOWN from the cool atmosphere. More INCOMING energy means the surface HEATS som more.

    It is ONLY the (incoming) ‘back radiation flux’ that does the extra warming of the surface, Tim. Again, just look at the diagram. It’s there for everyone to see. There’s no denying it. How could the surface flux increase from 165 to 398 if not for the internal self-amplifying loop including the ‘back radiation’?

    Again, the EFFECT does not violate the 2nd Law. Your EXPLANATION of it clearly does.

  76. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 29, 2014 at 11:56 pm:

    “Kristian 10:20pm: I have no separate case to state separate from the top post picture and the science in support as abstracted in the linked Clough & Iacono 1995 paper which you can read for yourself.”

    Trick, there’s no point continuing this charade, I see. I asked you a simple question. You refuse to answer it, rather doing your best to evade it. That’s pretty telling.

    Here’s the original:

    “Trick says, September 29, 2014 at 12:46 pm:

    “The top post picture of the JGR article and the follow-up confirmatory testing speak for themselves.”

    Does it indeed? So enlighten us. Exactly what does it say? And more importantly, what does it not say?

    I simply want to know what YOU think it says. I can read the abstract, and I already have. That’s not the issue here, Trick. You imply this figure somehow vindicates and verifies your position. HOW? What’s included in this figure? And what’s not?

  77. Graham W says:

    Tim F says:

    “The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up (*NOT* energy being created).”

    Exactly. With the energy retained by the bulk gases. So does the biosphere and hydrosphere etc. All energy in from the sun that is impeded in escaping because of the presence of an atmosphere (as opposed to a bare Earth scenario where energy in=energy out).

    So you agree, most of the 33K warming is not due to the radiative GHE.

  78. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 2:42 am
    (“An ideal gas has no static lapse rate.”)
    “Agreed. No gas has a static lapse rate when at equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium requires constant temperatures. Only a small pocket of SKEPTICS hold the contrary view that the equilibrium condition is a thermal gradient..”

    I guess then that Loschmidt was a skeptic. Why did Maxwell agree for the thermostatic case.
    Tim please show any case where a diatomic gas in adiabatic column within a gravitational field not have a static temperature gradient, with no spontaneous heat diffusion to the lower temperature. Rudy Clausius did not include the concept of steam engine in orbit in his second Law

    ” This is the misapplication is exactly what drives nonsense like Green House Effect.
    This misapplication drives some nonsense from a small group of skeptics, but this is NOT what drives the GHE. What drives the GHE is what you yourself said: “The opposing radiance from the atmosphere does indeed limit surface radiative flux. ” This opposing radiance means the surface sheds energy less effectively, which means it has to warm.”

    No need to increase temperature as the atmosphere replaces the surface with a more effective radiator. Any increase in surface temperature above the effective EMR temperature and solid angle, is due to the static lapse rate, never your fake GHE.

    “The lapse rate does come into play, but this lapse rate is there because there is in general upward convective energy transfer through the troposphere. The models do not include a STATIC equilibrium lapse rate; they do often include a DYNAMIC lapse rate.”

    Another inherent error in models, leading to persistent error!!

  79. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 3:02 am

    (“That same radiative atmosphere replaces the surface with a radiative cross sectional area that is much more effective at radiating wast energy to space than the surface can. “)

    “No. The theoretically best radiator is a blackbody. It is the best at absorbing incoming radiation (ie 100% of possible light is absorbed), and equivalently it is best at emitting outgoing radiation (ie 100% of possible light is emitted.”

    only for your imaginary flat surface. Please go learn some geometry! The most “compact” radiator is an isotropic cross sectional area radiating uniformly into four Pi steradians.

    “A spherical blackbody surface at the altitude of the troposphere would have a larger radiance than the gas at the same temperature below it.”

    That is a trivial increase in apparent surface area. What is not trivial is the increase in atmosphere optical depth with altitude and a 2/3 cloud cover all radiating their own projected cross sectional area uniformly into the outer lower radiance two PI steradians. This is what your imaginary flat surface cannot do. Grind carbon and dust into space. What is the effective area and solid angle? Tim, your teachers lied to you. Again some idiot ideal, that is never part of this physical. Get over it!

  80. Kristian says:

    Graham W says, September 30, 2014 at 8:08 am:

    “Tim F says:

    “The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up (*NOT* energy being created).”

    Exactly.”

    This is what the atmosphere ACTUALLY does. It is NOT what Tim’s explanation of the effect says it does. Don’t let him fool you into thinking so.

    This explanation clearly states that the atmosphere feeds the surface with EXTRA energy coming IN, more INPUT of energy, in addition to the solar HEAT input. Same direct effect as the solar. Same effect, same phenomenon: Heat. He’s of course not calling it heat. He hides hig extra energy input behind the big poster saying ‘NET ENERGY’. But his ‘back radiation flux’ clearly acts as a direct second heat transfer to the surface, giving the exact same result as the solar:

    “So you agree, most of the 33K warming is not due to the radiative GHE.”

    Graham, the atmosphere doesn’t radiatively make the surface any warmer at all. The IR-active gases in the atmosphere enable it (and hence the Earth system as a whole) to cool to space. They don’t enable it to warm. This goes for the troposphere (indirectly) and the stratosphere (directly) alike. The surface cools by convection, but the atmosphere cools by radiation.

    The global surface temperature of the Earth is about 90K warmer than the Moon’s, on average, because the former has an atmosphere and the latter doesn’t. But the ‘warming’ (insulating) effect comes about solely from the MASS of our atmosphere – it has a ‘heat capacity’, it is able to warm (space isn’t), and it has a ‘weight’, it presses down on the surface with a certain pressure (downward force) (space doesn’t). That’s what our atmosphere does.

  81. “No need to increase temperature as the atmosphere replaces the surface with a more effective radiator”

    Yes, I’ve been saying that for a while.

    Radiation to space from within an atmosphere must be instead of radiation to space from the surface.

    GHGs just re allocate radiation to space to a different location but energy in and energy out remain the same with no change in surface temperatutre.

  82. Trick says:

    Kristian 7:12am: “You imply this figure somehow vindicates and verifies your position. HOW?”

    Nothing more nor less than what I read in the abstract of the paper. I don’t have a “your position” different than the verified by test basic science. The basic science is as demonstrated in the top post analysis picture and follow-up confirming atmospheric test.

    “What’s included in this figure?”

    As Kristian read in the abstract: “A line-by-line model (LBLRTM) has been applied to the calculation of clear-sky longwave fluxes and cooling rates for atmospheres including CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, CCl4, CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-22 in addition to water vapor.”

    “And what’s not?”

    The abstract doesn’t mention anything specifically not included. Results demonstrate that any effect not included in the analysis is within instrument error since top post picture results compare to atmospheric test within that precision instrument error.

    Perhaps Kristian means the confidence intervals are not included in the abstract? They would be on the order of precision instrument error. Perhaps Kristian questions the “reasonable approximation” for the polar regions mentioned in the abstract? I’ve ordered the full paper, the local college library says 5-7 days.

  83. Graham W says:

    Kristian, I don’t think we’re in disagreement. I am basically saying, IF you choose to argue that “the atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up (*NOT* energy being created) [thereby causing the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be]”, and you are saying that this happens because of the radiative properties of GHGs, logically, you must also accept that ANYTHING that impedes the escape of energy from the Earth system, leads to warming. Because there’s only one way for energy in, and only one way it’s getting out – THROUGH the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, all the “spheres” you can think of. You name ’em – energy has to get through ’em before it leaves the planet.

    Clearly there are bigger things causing this impedance of energy leaving the atmosphere than just the radiative effect as far as the Earth system is concerned if you think of it like that.

    So to argue “atmosphere impedes the escape of energy…” as your definition of the GHE, funnily enough, IS to argue AGAINST the radiative GHE being the main cause of the hypothesised 33K difference.

    I’m not saying I’M arguing “atmosphere impedes the escape of energy…” or not, either way. I really don’t know. This is why I say I understand your point…but from what I keep getting told everywhere I read, they’re not saying the GHE is extra energy being added (even if that IS what the Trenberth diagrams actually show) – they’re always twisting it to be “the Earth is cooling slower because of GHGs”…the “throttling” effect. Delay. Whatever you want to call it, it amounts to the same thing. And I’m saying, IF you argue this…you also argue that.

  84. Trick says:

    Stephen 12:24pm: “GHGs just re allocate radiation to space to a different location but energy in and energy out remain the same with no change in surface temperatutre.”

    Only in Stephen’s imagination. Were this true in nature the top post picture and confirming atmospheric tests would have found no red/orange/yellow/green regions identified with CO2 pointer.

  85. “the top post picture and confirming atmospheric tests would have found no red/orange/yellow/green regions identified with CO2 pointer.”

    I don’t see that as a logical conclusion.

    The red and orange show radiation to space from a region off the surface. That lost energy is removed from the system and no loger able to participate in radiation to space from the surface.

    The system therefore compensates for that energy loss elsewhere.

  86. Trick says:

    Stephen 2:04pm: “I don’t see that as a logical conclusion. The red and orange show radiation to space from a region off the surface.”

    Concur that Stephen doesn’t yet see nature’s logic, learning about nature is good Stephen, you can make progress by studying this modern paper abstract & in full along with R&C13 (not my words, study those papers words):

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

    “The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating.”

    The “apparent” effect is more fully reported in detail terms of atm. optical depth in the R&C13 paper SI (and elsewhere) where both pressure and optical extinction summed by various gas species effect on surface Tmean & transparency achieved around 0.1 bar are explained from foundational science and reasonably confirmed by observations of planets and moons with thick atmospheres. Reasonably enough to aid in exploring nature of exoplanets.

  87. Tim Folkerts says:

    Will,

    A spherical blackbody with a total surface area A at temperature T radiating to space (which we will call 0 K for simplicity) will emit power at a rate.

    P = (sigma) A T^4

    Any other spherical surface of the same area and temperature will emit less power. In particular, a transparent spherical surface with any sort of gas inside at temperature T will emit less than P = (sigma) A T^4. Thus the gas within that surface emits LESS energy to space and is LESS effective at cooling the spherical body.

  88. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 30, 2014 at 1:08 pm:

    “Kristian 7:12am: “You imply this figure somehow vindicates and verifies your position. HOW?”

    Nothing more nor less than what I read in the abstract of the paper. I don’t have a “your position” different than the verified by test basic science. The basic science is as demonstrated in the top post analysis picture and follow-up confirming atmospheric test.”

    Of course you have a “your position”. Why won’t you state it? You clearly imply that the top figure unequivocally shows us all that there is an ‘atmospheric radiative GHE’ making the surface of the Earth much warmer than at pure solar equilibrium. HOW exactly does it show this? Where and how do you see it?

    You keep appealing to some kind of “basic science”. The basic science of what, Trick? Does this figure deal with anything but the basic science of radiation? Does it say anything at all about how energy is actually being moved through the troposphere as opposed to the stratosphere? No. All we see is radiative cooling rates.

    You don’t get to choose what part of the “basic physics” you want to use and just ignore the rest, Trick, and based on this approach proclaim you’re right. You’ve been called out on this a hundred times or more, we all know about your tricks by now (they never change), and still you keep on trying to play them.

    In the troposphere there are other kinds of “basic physical processes” that render the “basic physics” of radiative transfer completely irrelevant. In the troposphere, radiation is only along for the ride. It is basically only important as a heat transfer from surface to air and from air to space. Other than this, it is utterly powerless, just like conduction, in affecting energy transports within the troposphere, from the heating end to the cooling end. Like in all fluids. Radiation in the troposphere is simply an energy INPUT from the surface and an energy OUTPUT to space. When it comes to energy THROUGHPUT, convection reigns supreme.

    ““What’s included in this figure?”

    As Kristian read in the abstract: “A line-by-line model (LBLRTM) has been applied to the calculation of clear-sky longwave fluxes and cooling rates for atmospheres including CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, CCl4, CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-22 in addition to water vapor.””

    Exactly. Radiation only. Observing a specific radiative pattern doesn’t mean we are free to conclude that this pattern is the CAUSE of anything, Trick. It might just as well be the RESULT of something. And in the troposphere, it is.

    ““And what’s not?”

    The abstract doesn’t mention anything specifically not included. Results demonstrate that any effect not included in the analysis is within instrument error since top post picture results compare to atmospheric test within that precision instrument error.”

    It doesn’t include convection, Trick. What does your figure have to say about convective energy transports within the troposphere? And what does it have to say about surface temperatures? This study employs a purely radiative model on a churning volume of gas in a gravity field, heated from below. That means it excludes conductive and latent heat transfers from surface to atmosphere + the mass and hence energy transport mechanism driving internal tropospheric heat transfer: convection. So such a study doesn’t say ANYTHING about how the troposphere ACTUALLY works. The radiative pattern observed is just that, a radiative pattern. It is you who imply that this pattern somehow tells us something profound about how the rGHE warms the surface of the Earth.

    Come on, now, Trick. Give it to us.

    “Perhaps Kristian means the confidence intervals are not included in the abstract? They would be on the order of precision instrument error. Perhaps Kristian questions the “reasonable approximation” for the polar regions mentioned in the abstract?”

    No. I only want to hear YOU explain what exactly you think the top figure tells us about the rGHE. You come off as having it all figured out. So why not let us in on your secret? Why so shy?

    How exactly does it show us that IR-active gases in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer through their radiative properties? That this is how the atmosphere warms the surface?

  89. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    “Will, A spherical blackbody with a total surface area A at temperature T radiating to space (which we will call 0 K for simplicity) will emit power at a rate. P = (sigma) A T^4”

    Again you mistake a fantasy ideal concept, with the physical “will emit”! In this physical it is only “will never emit” some theoretical Any opposing radiance can never use 0 Kelvin as a reference. Zero Kelvin is a mathematical asymptote and can never be raised to a power greater than unity, without creating a mathematical Not a Number! Why do you insist on lecturing nonsense that if believed must always be painfully unlearned?

    The S-B equation for a flat surface radiating into a hemisphere of high emissivity but lower temperature and a path with no absorptivity and no reflectivity. is P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) (Th^4- Tc^4). All within parenthesis “must” be evaluated prior to any other operations or assignment. Assignment of either T to zero Kelvin destroys any such equation. The term “epsilon” is the highly angular and specular composite of the radiative properties of said flat surface. The use of that theoretical S-B equation for any other application is simply intentional fraud! Your above equation is intentional fraud.

    “Any other spherical surface of the same area and temperature will emit less power. In particular, a transparent spherical surface with any sort of gas inside at temperature T will emit less than P = (sigma) A T^4. Thus the gas within that surface emits LESS energy to space and is LESS effective at cooling the spherical body.”

    The radiative surface area for any gravitationally limited gaseous object must have fractal dimensions, and is unknown. Consider the surface area of a deciduous tree with leaves, All of the leaves receive some direct or scattered solar radiation. Your ClimAstrologists do not even know the surface area of this Earth. Tim, all you have is your kindergarten fantasy of post modern nonsense.

  90. Tim Folkerts says:

    Will, for “typical” situations, (Th^4- Tc^4) will be on the order of (270K^4 – 2.7K^4). Since the temperature of space is 10^-2 smaller, the correction will be of the order 10^-8.

    Unless you are carrying out all calculations to 9 decimal places, the temperature of space can be safely ignored here.

  91. Tim Folkerts says:

    will says “The radiative surface area for any gravitationally limited gaseous object must have fractal dimensions”

    Following this line of thought, we could consider the sun. It is indeed a “gravitationally limited gaseous object”. Properties of the sun have been measured:
    T=5800K = surface temperature
    r = 6.96 e8 m

    From this it is easy to calculate the power of a “simple blackbody”
    P = (sigma) A (T^4) = 5.67e-8 * 6.1e18 * 1.1e15 = 3.9 e30 W

    If the rules of physics work the way you claim, then the sun should emit significantly MORE than this amount. However, the sun emits right at this amount (give or take the uncertainty in the values I used). Thus we do not need to include some higher “fractal dimension” to explain the sun’s power output. Similarly, we do not need to include some higher “fractal dimension” to explain the atmosphere’s power output.

  92. Trick says:

    Kristian 4:18pm: Quite an epistle. Still, I really do have no position on the top post separate from what I read in its paper.

    ******

    If you want more, spinach time. Skip if not interested, I have no editor; live a good life anyway. Although I know demonstrated no use to Kristian, answering the questions is useful to me as the work furthers my understanding of the basic science. Especially when I pull a paper or intro. atm. science text book to do so.

    “Why won’t you state (your position)?”

    My top post position is as stated by the abstract of the paper. No more no less. I could state the whole thing here but that adds little, the link is available.

    “You clearly imply that the top figure unequivocally shows us all that there is an ‘atmospheric radiative GHE’…”

    Oh. So far as the paper used in the top post (abstract) implies that then so do I.

    For me, the more clear unequivocal atmospheric radiative GHE not mentioned in top post is through surface temporal and spatial thermometer field measurement around 288K and satellite field measurement of around 255K (satellite high enough that convective and conductive energy transfer are negligible). Confidence increased since backed with text book theory with measured input calculates similar results on this planet and others – that have such measurements.

    “You don’t get to choose what part of the “basic physics” you want to use and just ignore the rest, Trick.”

    Concur so I don’t choose, don’t ignore, I properly include all modes energy transfer – radiative, conductive, convective. See 11:56pm where convection and conduction I show part of the all-sky emission basic physics.

    “In the troposphere there are other kinds of “basic physical processes” that render the “basic physics” of radiative transfer completely irrelevant….When it comes to energy THROUGHPUT, convection reigns supreme.”

    If this were true in nature, the top post analysis by LBLRTM would be rendered irrelevant by radiosonde and satellite test. Reality is in nature, the radiosondes and satellites agree with the top post picture to within precision instrument error. Actually then convection and conduction are shown irrelevant to top post picture – text book science shows why – convective & conductive energy transfer in an atm. can be considered as adiabatic processes, i.e. their energy that goes up, that energy comes down e.g. their 24+88 up and:
    24+88+75+158=345 are shown in all-sky emission down shown in your own 8:38pm clip.

    “You’ve been called out on this a hundred times or more…”

    And please do keep trying Kristian but, you know, look up a ref. cite to support your position before commenting, the basic science principles that stand the test of time will win out but maybe there is a better fundamental yet to be found. Be the 1st.

    “Radiation only. Observing a specific radiative pattern doesn’t mean we are free to conclude that this pattern is the CAUSE of anything, Trick.”

    Fair enough. This is why the authors and others went out and tested the LBLRTM analysis and found the in situ atmosphere results to be the same within precision instrument error. I posted their results as confirmation in my 1st post in this thread. I did some work; looked up and shared cites.

    “..means it excludes conductive and latent heat transfers from surface to atmosphere + the mass and hence energy transport mechanism driving internal tropospheric heat transfer: convection.”

    Concur. The LBLRTM is analysis by radiative transfer for three earth atmospheres: tropical, midlatitude summer, and midlatitude winter. Polar is “reasonable approximation”. The results agree with ERBE, CERES et. al. satellites and radiosondes which include natural radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer.
    This should inform Kristian conductive and convective transfer in an atmosphere really can be considered adiabatic (as Stephen relentlessly points out) at least within precision instrument error.

    “It is you who imply that this pattern somehow tells us something profound about how the rGHE warms the surface of the Earth.”

    Again it is not me, I have no position on topic more or less than the paper. Off topic, I rely on the measurements of the thermometer field and the satellite field to define planetary GHE beyond what is mentioned in the paper and the top post.

    “No. I only want to hear YOU explain what exactly you think the top figure tells us about the rGHE. You come off as having it all figured out. So why not let us in on your secret? Why so shy?”

    Shy? Count my posts. Secret? I have no more no less than the paper. No more no less than the basic science in text books all based on beaucoup disciplined replicable measurements and 1st principles.

    “How exactly does it show us that IR-active gases in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer through their radiative properties? That this is how the atmosphere warms the surface?”

    Science is exactly shown by hard won lab & in situ test thru demonstrated principles by the scientific method. These are detailed in the R&C13 SI. They work close enough approximation in all the solar system objects with thick atmospheres to give some reasonable confidence for exoplanet exploration.

    ******

    Even more spinach. Kristian really does want my words. My words: Read the abstract words carefully along with the rest of the abstract & full paper and find where much confusion on blogs can originate. One can always come back to this paper to refocus as it has stood the test of time.

    Since at great height there are higher cooling rates (K/day) in the wavenumbers indicated by CO2 pointer than many of the balance of wavenumbers, there is relatively less terrestrial energy incident on those physical regions. IOW as Tim C. writes top post picture “does show a null below the CO2, blocked channel.”

    From this, one could meaningfully interpret a lot of the stratosphere being in the terrestrial energy shade provided by the troposphere in these CO2 wavenumber ranges; the data show nature’s response to IR active gas wavenumbers both analytically and by test. This data is consistent with the nature of atm. optical depth by pressure and extinction of gas species on surface Tmean as reported in the R&C13 paper SI. Don’t even need to go into pressure broadening discussion, that is tougher spinach.

    This is why the search for meaningful Tmean anomaly in the stratosphere has so much interest.

    Stephen writes: ”The system therefore compensates for that energy loss elsewhere.”

    Concur. As R&C13 show, the system compensates for providing the stratosphere this shade by increased surface Tmean in the troposphere. To enable the higher stratosphere cooling rates (being shaded), less incident terrestrial energy on the regions marked by CO2 is compensated by more terrestrial energy incident in surface regions as shown in top post picture in those wavenumbers.

  93. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    “Will, for “typical” situations, (Th^4- Tc^4) will be on the order of (270K^4 – 2.7K^4). Since the temperature of space is 10^-2 smaller, the correction will be of the order 10^-8. Unless you are carrying out all calculations to 9 decimal places, the temperature of space can be safely ignored here.”

    Indeed absolute Zero may be mathematically “approached” at any scale. But your post modern nonsense cannot “throw away an asymptote, and claim that all thermal electromagnetic flux is dependent on only one temperature”. This is truly non-physical, and deliberate fraud on the part of your post modern nonsense. The idea of arithmetic similarity with the “two stream”, is also deliberate fraud. This physical atmosphere works nothing like you claim. You seem only to promote absence of understanding. Poor students.

  94. Tim Folkerts says: September 30, 2014 at 6:49 pm
    (will says “The radiative surface area for any gravitationally limited gaseous object must have fractal dimensions”)

    “Following this line of thought, we could consider the sun. It is indeed a “gravitationally limited gaseous object”. Properties of the sun have been measured:
    T=5800K = surface temperature
    r = 6.96 e8 m”

    Earthlings measure many things with superb accuracy. With no understanding of “what is measured”.

    “From this it is easy to calculate the power of a “simple blackbody”
    P = (sigma) A (T^4) = 5.67e-8 * 6.1e18 * 1.1e15 = 3.9 e30 W”

    Again you have mistakenly calculated the radiative intensity of the Sun in every of the four PI directions. Please go buy a teenager that understands geometry!

    If the rules of physics work the way you claim, then the sun should emit significantly MORE than this amount. However, the sun emits right at this amount (give or take the uncertainty in the values I used).

    About this Earth We measure Solar intensity in this direction, complete with all geometrical fractals of that Solar surface. Earthlings then claim, some surface temperature and cross sectional area of earthlings illusions. Earthling satellites orbiting the Sun will give many more measurements resulting in nothing but AW SHIT! This is called learning!

    “Thus we do not need to include some higher “fractal dimension” to explain the sun’s power output. Similarly, we do not need to include some higher “fractal dimension” to explain the atmosphere’s power output.”

    Only if one is an arrogant academic sitting on the potty, never observing what is!

  95. Here Trickster finally admits that he is only promoting a paper he has not even read!
    Not even a Joel Shore sock puppet would make such a fatal mistake.

    [Reply] Will, if trick was talking to you, and had used words such as “willful misunderstanding” or “fraud”, I would allow this comment. As it is, I won’t. Sorry. TB

    OK Roger,
    Please instruct on your rules. It is your blog. I will try to comply, but only on “your” blog.

  96. Tim Folkerts says:

    “Again you have mistakenly calculated the radiative intensity of the Sun in every of the four PI directions. “
    No, I have INTENTIONALLY calculated the power in every direction since the total power radiated is what determines the cooling ability.

    “But your post modern nonsense cannot “throw away an asymptote, and claim that all thermal electromagnetic flux is dependent on only one temperature”. “
    But I don’t claim any such thing. There was no claim that ALL flux can be calculated from only the temperature of the hot object. You need to work on your critical reading skills. Of course the net flux depends on both temperatures.

    On the other hand, in situations where one factor is about 0.0000001 as large as the other, no engineer is ever going to worry about the insignificant corrections. So here, where space is so close to 0K, we can leave it out of the calculations with no significant error.

  97. tallbloke says:

    Will: OK Roger,
    Please instruct on your rules. It is your blog. I will try to comply

    I don’t issue rules, I try to maintain an atmosphere conducive to productive scientific debate.

    Please try to help me do that.

  98. Kristian says:

    Trick says, September 30, 2014 at 7:09 pm:

    “Kristian 4:18pm: Quite an epistle. Still, I really do have no position on the top post separate from what I read in its paper.”

    On the top post? I’m not asking you about your position on the top post, Trick. You have a position on whether or not there exists an ‘atmospheric radiative GHE’ making the surface of the Earth warmer than what a pure solar equilibrium would, don’t you? Well, that is the ‘position’ I’m referring to. You keep pointing to the figure in the top post as some kind of verification of your position. It apparently “speaks for itself”. I ask you: Does it indeed? HOW EXACTLY? DO ELABORATE. But you refuse to. Fine. But then there’s no point in you referring to this figure anymore, is there? Since no one other than yourself would understand what you’re talking about when you do.

    You have to state your case clearly, Trick. Not just vaguely refer to some visualised model results in a figure.

    “Although I know demonstrated no use to Kristian, answering the questions is useful to me as the work furthers my understanding of the basic science. Especially when I pull a paper or intro. atm. science text book to do so.”

    What nonsense is this? If you state your case properly, of course I will listen. I most likely won’t agree with you, but that’s a different matter.

    “My top post position is as stated by the abstract of the paper. No more no less. I could state the whole thing here but that adds little, the link is available.”

    Yes, on the top post. Not on the rGHE. On the figure you keep referring to. To explain that one you need to spell it out using your own words. You do have a mind of your own, don’t you Trick? In what way does the top post figure show that there is a rGHE warming the surface of the Earth?

    “For me, the more clear unequivocal atmospheric radiative GHE not mentioned in top post is through surface temporal and spatial thermometer field measurement around 288K and satellite field measurement of around 255K (satellite high enough that convective and conductive energy transfer are negligible). Confidence increased since backed with text book theory with measured input calculates similar results on this planet and others – that have such measurements.”

    Satellites measure a final radiative flux from the Earth system to space of 240 W/m^2, not a temperature of 255K. This tells us nothing about how the surface got its mean global temperature of 288K. That’s just you making assumptions based on circular reasoning.

    ““You don’t get to choose what part of the “basic physics” you want to use and just ignore the rest, Trick.”

    Concur so I don’t choose, don’t ignore, I properly include all modes energy transfer – radiative, conductive, convective. See 11:56pm where convection and conduction I show part of the all-sky emission basic physics.”

    This is how the diagram works, Trick:

    You calculate: 24+88+75+158=345

    So ALL of the energy conducted from surface to atmosphere (24 W/m^2) is radiated back DOWN? And ALL of the energy transferred latently (evaporation>condensation) from surface to atmosphere (88 W/m^2) is radiated back DOWN? And ALL of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the Sun (75 W/m^2) is radiated DOWN to the surface? Plus that peculiar 158 W/m^2 flux of yours. Where’s that coming from? Your invented extra energy? 398 – 240? Er, no, Trick. This is not “basic physics”. This is “physics” by bonehead arithmetic.

    In reality, the atmosphere of course absorbs 220 W/m^2 worth of energy on average, 145 from the surface (33 through radiation, 24 through conduction, and 88 through evaporation) and 75 from the Sun. ALL OF THIS – 220 W/m^2 – exits to space through radiation. The throughput is a zero-sum game. All that enters exits. None of this energy remains inside the system. And all energy that enters (is absorbed) moves naturally and relentlessly upwards, away from the surface, to be radiated out of the system. Because of convection, buoyant uplift.

    ““In the troposphere there are other kinds of “basic physical processes” that render the “basic physics” of radiative transfer completely irrelevant….When it comes to energy THROUGHPUT, convection reigns supreme.”

    If this were true in nature, the top post analysis by LBLRTM would be rendered irrelevant by radiosonde and satellite test.”

    Why?

    Are you seriously denying the well-known fact (this truly is basic physics) that convection controls the energy transport/distribution within the troposphere!?

    Radiation is an effect, not a cause, in the troposphere, Trick.

    “Reality is in nature, the radiosondes and satellites agree with the top post picture to within precision instrument error. Actually then convection and conduction are shown irrelevant to top post picture – text book science shows why – convective & conductive energy transfer in an atm. can be considered as adiabatic processes, i.e. their energy that goes up, that energy comes down e.g. their 24+88 up and:
    24+88+75+158=345 are shown in all-sky emission down shown in your own 8:38pm clip.”

    So you actually DO think that all the energy that is brought into the atmosphere from the surface is brought back down again. Wow. Just … wow.

    You are truly a funny character, Trick.

    ““Radiation only. Observing a specific radiative pattern doesn’t mean we are free to conclude that this pattern is the CAUSE of anything, Trick.”

    Fair enough. This is why the authors and others went out and tested the LBLRTM analysis and found the in situ atmosphere results to be the same within precision instrument error. I posted their results as confirmation in my 1st post in this thread. I did some work; looked up and shared cites.”

    A radiative pattern is a radiative pattern, Trick. No more, no less. The pattern itself doesn’t say anything about whether the radiation is a cause or an effect.

    You know, there are “field measurements” of OLR from the ToA. It coincides very well with water cycle response to surface processes, prominently ENSO. When the surface warms, more energy is transferred into the atmosphere, mostly by evaporation, and guess what … OLR soars! Can you imagine? Surface temp up, deep moist convection up, tropospheric humidity up, tropospheric temp up, OLR from the ToA up. Radiation to space is the end RESULT of the processes going on at the surface and in the troposphere, Trick. Live with it.

    ““..means it excludes conductive and latent heat transfers from surface to atmosphere + the mass and hence energy transport mechanism driving internal tropospheric heat transfer: convection.”

    Concur. The LBLRTM is analysis by radiative transfer for three earth atmospheres: tropical, midlatitude summer, and midlatitude winter. Polar is “reasonable approximation”. The results agree with ERBE, CERES et. al. satellites and radiosondes which include natural radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer.”

    If you employ a radiative model and then go out and observe radiation, why shouldn’t the results match? It would be strange if they didn’t. There is nothing wrong with radiative transfer physics. It’s simply irrelevant when it comes to energy transport WITHIN the troposphere.

    ““How exactly does it show us that IR-active gases in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer through their radiative properties? That this is how the atmosphere warms the surface?”

    Science is exactly shown by hard won lab & in situ test thru demonstrated principles by the scientific method. These are detailed in the R&C13 SI. They work close enough approximation in all the solar system objects with thick atmospheres to give some reasonable confidence for exoplanet exploration.”

    R&C looked at tropopause height in thick atmospheres, not at how IR-active gases warm the surface underneath. That’s just your extrapolation.

    “Since at great height there are higher cooling rates (K/day) in the wavenumbers indicated by CO2 pointer than many of the balance of wavenumbers, there is relatively less terrestrial energy incident on those physical regions. IOW as Tim C. writes top post picture “does show a null below the CO2, blocked channel.””

    Yup, the opacity of the CO2 band is so great that energy does not escape significantly to space through it until we reach pretty high up. This doesn’t mean that some of the energy below this altitude is somehow being ‘held captive’ inside the atmosphere. This is merely a deep-seated figment of the warmists imagination.

  99. Tim Folkerts says:

    Kristian says: This [Tim’s previously proffered explanation] is what the atmosphere ACTUALLY does. It is NOT what Tim’s explanation of the effect says it does. Don’t let him fool you into thinking so.

    Say what??? I gave an explanation (“The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up”). You apparently agreed that this explanation describes what the atmosphere actually does. Then you said that my explanation was wrong. What am I missing?

    “But his [Tim’s] ‘back radiation flux’ clearly acts as a direct second heat transfer to the surface… “
    No, it doesn’t act that way (let alone act “clearly”). Whether you want to talk in terms of “two opposing streams” or some net “radiative flux”, the “heat” is *clearly* from the surface toward the cooler atmosphere/space (with a value of a few 10’s of W/m^2). The atmosphere’s radiative properties are an impedance to the upward flux from the surface. If we could magically remove the radiative properties of the atmosphere, the upward flux would no longer be impeded, the upward flux would increase from a few 10’s of W/m^2 to a few 100’s of W/m^2 (resulting in a sudden and dramatic cooling of the surface).

    PS. Can you give a source for the second diagram you present – the one with the looping arrows? I have not seen that one before and it doesn’t really make sense to me.

  100. Trick says:

    Kristian 10:59pm: I am unimpressed by your assertions as you provide no science cites. The top post is the topic. The paper abstract it cites explains the subject science clearly enough . The follow-up cites I provided clearly explain the testing to support the top post analysis. You go off topic and pull me along – interesting to a point.

    Couple more pulled points:

    “So you actually DO think that all the energy that is brought into the atmosphere from the surface is brought back down again. Wow. Just … wow.”

    Clearly, wow, no. Globally centered over about 10 years, 345.6 is all-sky emission incident down to surface, the 24+88+398 is up from surface in Kristian’s own clip at 8:38pm. Some of which goes through atm. to space unimpeded (window). Clearly Kristian does not understand his own clip. (Stephens et. al 9/2012 N.Geo.).

    “R&C looked at tropopause height in thick atmospheres, not at how IR-active gases warm the surface underneath. That’s just your extrapolation.”

    No. Clearly Kristian has not read and understood R&C13 & its SI cited & linked upthread. Here is the concluding sentence verbatim cut&paste:

    “Thus, a unity of physics not only explains ~0.1 bar tropopauses in thick Solar System atmospheres but also has the implication of potentially constraining exoplanet habitability.”

    Planets are inhabited so far as we know at the surface hence….

    For exoplanets, R&C13 ~0.1 bar tropopause assumption for thick atm.s – the paper informs would “allow an estimate of surface temperature or pressure, respectively, which together are required to assess liquid water stability.”

    Ok, that’s it – back to the regular scheduled program of Clough & Iacono 1995. Interesting top post science to discuss which is good for exploring exoplanets also.

    Kristian – I will be impressed with your off-topic comments employing science citations.

    PS: The Stephens et. al. 158 W/m^2 component of the 345.6 all-sky emission to surface has been a top post comment topic here in the past. Not new talkshop.

  101. Graham W says:

    Tim F says again:

    “The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up”

    And I say again, if you accept that impeding the escape of energy increases temperature at the surface, you must accept that energy being impeded in its escape by other means (non-radiative) must also lead to warming. I mentioned bulk gases before, here is a link to someone else explaining it better than I can so you don’t have to listen to my drivel:

    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6070

  102. Tim Folkerts says:

    Graham says: “And I say again, if you accept that impeding the escape of energy increases temperature at the surface, you must accept that energy being impeded in its escape by other means (non-radiative) must also lead to warming. “

    But there is a difference. The atmosphere cannot impede the conduction of energy from the surface to space (because there is none to begin with). The atmosphere cannot impede the convection of energy from the surface to space (because there is none to begin with). The atmosphere cannot impede the transfer of latent heat from the surface to space (because there is none to begin with).

    But the atmosphere can impede the radiation of energy from the surface to space. Hence it can directly impact the temperature of the surface.

    That said, conduction, convection and latent heat are an important part of the ultimate energy transfer up within the atmosphere, and as such they impact the surface temperature. But without some radiative properties for the atmosphere to shed energy to space, no amount of atmosphere can warm the surface above the limits set by free radiation to space (ie ~ 255 K @ current conditions).

  103. “That said, conduction, convection and latent heat are an important part of the ultimate energy transfer up within the atmosphere, and as such they impact the surface temperature. But without some radiative properties for the atmosphere to shed energy to space, no amount of atmosphere can warm the surface above the limits set by free radiation to space (ie ~ 255 K @ current conditions).”

    That sounds contradictory.

    Free radiation to space sets the surface temperature at 255K but that implies no atmosphere.

    If one then adds an atmosphere then radiation to space is no longer free and Earth’s surface temperature rises to 288K.

    So is the rise due to radiation or conduction and convection ?

    I say the latter, with the radiative fluxes within the atmosphere being a consequence of conduction and convection after conduction and convection have caused that 33K rise.

  104. wayne says:

    Will,

    This is truly non-physical, and deliberate fraud on the part of your post modern nonsense. The idea of arithmetic similarity with the “two stream”, is also deliberate fraud. This physical atmosphere works nothing like you claim. You seem only to promote absence of understanding. Poor students.

    Ha! Oh yes, that is the first thing I also think… poor students! Tim’s been doing this same story-line on various sites for some six years now, maybe more, so I don’t think you have any chance in him tossing his figments. But I enjoy your comments Will, on or near this subject. You seem to have the job-expertise to handle Tim better than myself. I find I can’t think (too picky) and type fast enough and lack the on-job experience.

    He only picks two-stream for radiation. Here’s a thought. If you see back-radiation then equally you should also see back-conduction. Every molecule pounding the surface has, over the ages, been there, moved upward and now is coming backwards. I bet if you numerically integrated back-conduction down to the millimeter or micron level at the exact surface it would dwarf back-radiation. Tim sees photons reflecting (absorption/re-emission) from the atmosphere pounding on the surface but just image how much energy is in all of the molecules in a unit area that are also pounding downwards onto the surface. But will he treat them all always the same and consistent? Well no, only radiation, it’s a TFK 333+161 W/m^2 thing he pushes. This topic always spins off into circles even up to 1000 comments per thread. Been there. Done that.

  105. wayne says:

    CO2 only involves 12-13% of the entire IR spectrum at 288K. Another way to view it is it only controls at most two fifteenths of the IR spectrum, that’s it, at the surface and even less as pressure drops and lines thin with altitude. Water vapor OTOH… some eleven of twelve fifteenths and across the spectrum minus some small partial ‘windows’. There is one thin slice right at 9.5-10 microns that is about as clear to IR as it gets at normal temperatures from the surface.

    Remembering that only some 63 W/m^2 actually leaves permanently the surface by IR, some 40 W/m² goes directly to space so of the 23 remainder at 13% what are we dealing with here… three watts per unit area for co2’s portion. Of course high in the atmosphere with thinned lines, collision induced excitation it lets co2 have a larger role however its lines still always sit down near the 215K line on any spectrum in that ‘bite’. That is how the evaporation and conduction energy and the SW energy absorbed directly by the atmosphere is ejected but in primarily via water vapor.

    (That was taken from a high resolution spectrum at the surface, 1000 meter horizontal length and using numeric integration of Planck’s equation directly (SB) by a method that allows more than 12 digits of precision within any wavenumber slice at any emissivity. I just used eps=1 here to not haggle over that parameter.)

    Does this play into this article? I still can’t fathom what a ‘K/day’ is supposed to even mean. I almost suspect some terminology trickery for we may not be seeing what we think we are seeing. Perhaps the figures are not density adjusted for relative amounts of energy transfer if a ‘K/day’ is even meant to be a form of energy transfer or energy density.

    Also with water’s high specific heat, five times that of co2, four times that of nitrogen or oxygen I have become to feel that nearly all of the energy we speak of, having to do with the climate system, ends up passing through water or water vapor at some time and/or in some form before it leaves, period.

  106. Tim Folkerts says:

    “He only picks two-stream for radiation.
    No, I am perfectly happy talking about either two-stream models or overall flow models. Both are mathematically equivalent at this level, and hence there is no a priori reasons to pick one over the other.

    “Here’s a thought. If you see back-radiation then equally you should also see back-conduction.”
    Consider a warm block of copper touching a cool block of copper. “Heat” is simply the sum of all the energy transfers as an atom in one block hits an atom in the other block. Over half of the collisions involve energy transfer from an atom in the warm block to an atom in the cool block. But some collisions involve energy being transferred from an atom in the cool block to an atom in the warm block.

    I should stop at this point and see if there is anybody who possibly disagrees. Or if anyone thinks that energy transfers from an atom in the cool block to an atom in the warm block constitutes a violation of the 2nd Law.

    Well, we could give the name “forward conduction” to the set of collisions that transfer energy from warm to cool. We could give the name “back conduction” to the remaining collisions, where energy is transferred from cool to warm. Then “conduction” would be the combination of “forward conduction” – “back conduction”. Of course, “conduction” is always from warm to cool, even though energy is moving both ways all the time.

  107. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, October 1, 2014 at 5:10 am:

    “Consider a warm block of copper touching a cool block of copper. “Heat” is simply the sum of all the energy transfers as an atom in one block hits an atom in the other block. Over half of the collisions involve energy transfer from an atom in the warm block to an atom in the cool block. But some collisions involve energy being transferred from an atom in the cool block to an atom in the warm block.

    I should stop at this point and see if there is anybody who possibly disagrees. Or if anyone thinks that energy transfers from an atom in the cool block to an atom in the warm block constitutes a violation of the 2nd Law.”

    I see you’re still desperately trying to worm your way out of your corner, Tim. Without actually having to face the direct implications of what your really saying. Misdirection and obfuscation. Standard tactics.

    Look, it would violate the 2nd Law if you let the ‘back conduction’ alone increase the internal energy of the warmer block, thus directly make its temperature go up in absolute terms. Because then you would have transferred HEAT from cool to warm. And this is exactly what you’re doing with your ‘atmospheric back radiation’, of course without saying so. You call it ‘energy’, but expect it to give a direct result as if it were ‘heat’. This is clearly read from the Earth energy budget diagrams promoted by the climate establishment. It’s right there. You making no attempt at addressing it openly, rather doing your utmost to have it swept under the rug, speaks volumes.

    It won’t do, Tim. You will have to change your EXPLANATION of what’s going on. In your scenario, it is not the energy coming in from the Sun that accumulates at the surface. It is the (self-multiplied) ‘back radiated’ energy from the cool atmosphere. Look at the diagrams. What’s wrong with those pictures?

  108. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, October 1, 2014 at 12:14 am:

    “Kristian says: This [Tim’s previously proffered explanation] is what the atmosphere ACTUALLY does. It is NOT what Tim’s explanation of the effect says it does. Don’t let him fool you into thinking so. ”

    Say what??? I gave an explanation (“The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up”). You apparently agreed that this explanation describes what the atmosphere actually does. Then you said that my explanation was wrong. What am I missing?”

    Hahaha! Yeah, what are you ‘missing’, Tim? Gee. Clever man like yourself. Quite funny, but also a little bit sad to see.

    What you’re missing is this: The difference between restricting the OUTGOING energy per unit of time from a hot object to its cooler surroundings (what’s REALLY happening) as opposed to what happens in your explanation: increasing the INCOMING energy per unit of time from the cooler surroundings to the hot object. In your scenario, the atmosphere doesn’t impede the escape of energy from the surface. It boosts the escape of energy from the surface. By feeding it with MORE energy coming IN. You’re not reducing cooling. You’re essentially increasing heating, thus forcing an increase in cooling also. Because you treat both the UWLWIR and DWLWIR as separate heat fluxes. Their vector sum is only the ‘net heat’ in your model. We all see it, Tim. It’s right there in the diagrams, how you let the energy flows set the final absolute temperature.

    ““But his [Tim’s] ‘back radiation flux’ clearly acts as a direct second heat transfer to the surface… “
    No, it doesn’t act that way (let alone act “clearly”).”

    Er, yes it does, Tim. I’m sorry, I realise you’re caught in your own illusion, but you will have to go back and take a second look at those diagrams. How does the surface go from 165 to 398 W/m^2? How does it go from 232 to 289K? Just look at the diagrams. It’s all there.

  109. Kristian says:

    Tim Folkerts says, October 1, 2014 at 12:14 am:

    “PS. Can you give a source for the second diagram you present – the one with the looping arrows? I have not seen that one before and it doesn’t really make sense to me.”

    Priceless. So it doesn’t make sense to you. Poor Tim. It is simply the Stephens et al. 2012 diagram presented in a slightly different (and more revealing) way, so that it’s easier to see what’s actually going on. There is nothing in that diagram that goes against anything in the original one. It is directly derived from it.

    So you finally see how things don’t add up, how things don’t make sense. Good for you, Tim.

    If you only look superficially at the original diagram, it seems plausible. But if you only delve in and actually follow the energy, you will end up with the second one. And see how nothing makes any sense in the end. Cool atmosphere heating warm surface, internal loops of self-intensifying fluxes.

  110. Kristian says:

    Graham W says, October 1, 2014 at 12:52 am:

    “Tim F says again:

    “The atmosphere impedes the escape of energy, causing energy to build up”

    And I say again, if you accept that impeding the escape of energy increases temperature at the surface, you must accept that energy being impeded in its escape by other means (non-radiative) must also lead to warming. I mentioned bulk gases before, here is a link to someone else explaining it better than I can so you don’t have to listen to my drivel:”

    You’re letting him escape his hole, Graham. You’re giving him a way out. Please don’t. Tim needs to face the fact, that he is NOT promoting radiative impedance from the surface UP. He’s promoting extra radiative heating DOWN. From the cool atmosphere.

    In his explanation, it is the ‘back radiated’ energy and ONLY this that increases the surface temperature some more, not the accumulation of the incoming solar energy. This is free to escape. It is only when the energy is returned back down at the next stage that the surface warms beyond pure solar equilibrium. This is such a blatant violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics that I’m amazed how everyone seems to just go along with it.

    It’s in his EXPLANATION, not in the EFFECT, that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. The atmosphere does impede energy escape from the surface, only not by feeding it with MORE energy from the outside. Because that’s not impeding anything. That increases heating … and the need to cool, so MORE energy ends up escaping the surface per unit of time.

  111. Graham W says:

    I agree, Kristian. When I make the argument I (and others) have done about “radiative impedance from the surface UP” Tim says that there’s a “difference” , and it turns out that this “difference” is basically, as you describe it, “extra radiative heating DOWN”. Then when you and others confront Tim about “extra radiative heating DOWN”, he basically tells you that this isn’t really what the GHE is, it’s “radiative impedance from the surface UP” again. Then when I reiterate my point about that, it’s back to the “difference”. Lol.

    I will butt out and leave you guys to it.

  112. Roger Clague says:

    wayne says:
    October 1, 2014 at 4:31 am

    Also with water’s high specific heat, five times that of co2, four times that of nitrogen or oxygen I have become to feel that nearly all of the energy we speak of, having to do with the climate system, ends up passing through water or water vapor at some time and/or in some form before it leaves, period.

    I agree. H20(g) captures the energy and passes it to the N2/O2.
    H2O(g) 2%
    Co2 0.04% ( does very little in the tropos.)

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

    specific heat N2 = 1J/kgK
    o2 = 1J/kgK
    H2O(g) = 2J/kgK

    T/h = g/c

    Using specific heat of H2O gives LR = 5K/km.
    Measured LR range is:
    5K/km wet to 6.5K/km dry
    LR dry is higher because less H2O means the CO2 and N2/O2, lower c, have an effect.

    The diagram at the top of the post shows H2o(g) does the radiating. And using cH2O(g) gets the correct value of LR

    Adiabatic LR = 10K/km is way off, never found, even over deserts.
    The claim is the reduction is due to latent heat. This is not convincing and not calculated.

    Trick and Tim correctly support a radiative approach but wrongly claim CO2 is the active gas, whereas I believe the facts point to H20(g) as the IR active gas.

  113. Trick says:

    Roger 9:52am: “Trick and Tim correctly support a radiative approach but wrongly claim CO2 is the active gas, whereas I believe the facts point to H20(g) as the IR active gas.”

    Roger – Optical depth of an atmosphere is not just from CO2 or even H2O. The mass mixing ratio profile of each constituent gas and opacity of each gas absorber in the atm. are summed along with pressure to find the total optical depth. The R&C13 paper linked in this thread shows the math details in their SI.

    Each atm. constituent gas has mass extinction coefficient found from lab test. In the top post picture, H2O doesn’t have a pointer added in post-production. The paper abstract covers the role of the H2O in the top post picture.

  114. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: October 1, 2014 at 9:52 am

    “Adiabatic LR = 10K/km is way off, never found, even over deserts.
    The claim is the reduction is due to latent heat. This is not convincing and not calculated.”

    Then show the measurements / studies that prove that the calculated cloudbases using the DALR are way off from the actual cloudbases, otherwise pse stop posting this nonsense.

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

  115. Kristian says:

    Graham W says, October 1, 2014 at 9:42 am:

    “When I make the argument I (and others) have done about “radiative impedance from the surface UP” Tim says that there’s a “difference” , and it turns out that this “difference” is basically, as you describe it, “extra radiative heating DOWN”. Then when you and others confront Tim about “extra radiative heating DOWN”, he basically tells you that this isn’t really what the GHE is, it’s “radiative impedance from the surface UP” again. Then when I reiterate my point about that, it’s back to the “difference”. Lol.

    I will butt out and leave you guys to it.”

    I think we’re done here, anyway. For the time being, at least. The sad thing, after all, is that people like Folkerts will simply ignore the facts pointed out to them, wait for a while, move on to another thread (or blog forum), perhaps, face new commenters, and then return with the exact same message, as if nothing new were ever brought to his attention. Gold-fish memory employed. The lalalalala tactic. And the politically embraced fairy tale of the ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect’ can thus be further disseminated. This is how it works in the ‘post-modern’ world. By the words of Pointman:

    “If you want to get through the system, and especially at modern university level, you have to conform academically. You have to bend the knee and kiss the cursed King’s pinky ring. Your future depends on the assessment and therefore the grades, of a bunch of securely tenured crustaceans, who’ve invested their whole life and reputation on a certain interpretation of the world, so any revolutionary theories you might be harbouring that they’re all wrong, you’d be well advised to keep to yourself. It actually stifles innovative thinking and they have to learn how to overcome it, to even think about something innovative. It’s a kind of premature Arterial Sclerosis of the intellect.

    The sad thing is that by the time most students reach that tertiary level, they’ve already learnt to conform to the orthodoxy. They’re very bright and clever people, but thinking outside the conventional box has long been knocked out of most of them. That’s how that modern idea of consensus science came about in certain branches of science and why it was therefore doomed to eventually give birth to that bastard child, called post-modern science. As long as you’re morally sure of the imperative, you can fudge actually proving the conjecture. It’s that old vicious philosophy of the end justifying the means, replacing the scientific method. It’s science lite.” (My bold.)

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-hasnt-there-been-a-real-debate-on-climate-science/

    (Definitely worth a read.)

  116. Trick says:

    Kristian 9:05am: “It is simply the Stephens et al. 2012 diagram presented in a slightly different (and more revealing) way, so that it’s easier to see what’s actually going on. There is nothing in that diagram that goes against anything in the original one. It is directly derived from it.”

    No – Kristian’s diagram does go against the original in Stephens 2012 B1. Wondered if we would get this from Kristian. No cite given for the 10:59pm “This is how the diagram works, Trick” diagram which clearly is botched as among other things double counts the Stephens convection/conduction 24 and rain/evaporation 88 in the blue up arrow by adding them again in the green up arrow.

    This botch results from Kristian not understanding the components of the Stephens 345.6 all-sky emission to surface, for that correct understanding – components broken out – see 7:09pm.

    Kristian – Just use the published Stephens 2012 Fig. B1 as is in the paper.

  117. Tim Folkerts says:
    September 30, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    (“Again you have mistakenly calculated the radiative intensity of the Sun in every of the four PI directions. “)

    “No, I have INTENTIONALLY calculated the power in every direction since the total power radiated is what determines the cooling ability.”

    What you have mistakenly calculated is from a fake temperature, a fake radius, a fake emissivity, a fake assumption of a fake lambertian surface, with a total fake area equal to four times the fake cross-sectional area of that fake radius. Now you call that fake value a fake cooling ability.
    No one knows how the Sun maintains its own temperature gradients, and any claim of any thermometric temperature is but a grand illusion.
    The only approximation we have from the Sun is the nearby limited waveband irradiance. Using that measurement and the one assumption of an isotropic radiator. That irradiance times the square of the distance to the Sun times four PI steradians solid angle give the known radiative power exiting the Sun. It is not heat. No fake assumptions about a fake lambertian non surface, or a fake temperature. These are your illusions to make your fake equations come out correctly. It is a gas with only cross sectional area. You cannot play silly S-B games with the Sun or the atmosphere of this Earth.

    (“But your post modern nonsense cannot “throw away an asymptote, and claim that all thermal electromagnetic flux is dependent on only one temperature”. “)

    “But I don’t claim any such thing. There was no claim that ALL flux can be calculated from only the temperature of the hot object. You need to work on your critical reading skills. Of course the net flux depends on both temperatures.”

    Tim finally admitted his grand mistake. You claim single temperature every time you mention back radiation or Trenberth’s cartoon. With equal temperature there is no flux. Look up the word flux! Measure the downward opposing radiance from 14-200 microns. A surface is not needed, atmospheric WV does all needed exitance. Radiatively the Earth’s surface need never exist, so no part of this atmosphere need ever impeed anything as claimed. The atmosphere is a much better radiator than the surface can be! CO2 does nothing.

    “On the other hand, in situations where one factor is about 0.0000001 as large as the other, no engineer is ever going to worry about the insignificant corrections. So here, where space is so close to 0K, we can leave it out of the calculations with no significant error.”

    This engineer knows not to use a broken equation. Engineers know not to use some meaningless average of temperatures As I just pointed out you cannot leave it out and still have an equation. You cannot assume anything. You must measure, or all you ever have is fantasy.

  118. Tim Folkerts says:

    Kristian says “It is simply the Stephens et al. 2012 diagram presented in a slightly different (and more revealing) way

    I suspected this would be the answer. Unfortunately, it is really just the information presented in a muddled and confusing way.

    Furthermore, statements like “You’re essentially increasing heating” and “So ALL of the energy conducted from surface to atmosphere (24 W/m^2) is radiated back DOWN?” indicate that you are not grasping the subtleties of the situation. Neither of these describes my thinking and my arguments about what is happening (nor represents correct physics for that matter). That fact that you attribute such thoughts to me shows you really don’t “grok” what I am saying. (And no, none of this violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.)

  119. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    September 30, 2014 at 10:59 pm

    Radiation is an effect, not a cause, in the troposphere

    All energy entering the atmos. is as radiation.
    The first thing that happens is 20% of that radiation is absorbed by the atmos.
    Radiation causes absorption of energy by IR active molecules
    In coming solar radiation is not the effect of IR active molecules

    This absorbed energy forms the LR
    The LR causes convection

  120. tallbloke says: September 30, 2014 at 9:38 pm

    (Will: OK Roger, “Please instruct on your rules. It is your blog. I will try to comply”)
    “I don’t issue rules, I try to maintain an atmosphere conducive to productive scientific debate.
    Please try to help me do that.)

    OK! I will, how about “productive debate” in the sense of “allowing earthlings to survive”, on this wonderful planet?