The greenhouse effect that wasn’t (Part 2)

Posted: November 16, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
Interesting read. Reblogged for discussion at the talkshop.

Okulær

A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE STUDY:

DOES

“THE ATMOSPHERIC RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE EFFECT”

DO WHAT IT’S SUPPOSED TO DO?

First, what is the rGHE supposed to do?

It is supposed to make the surface below a radiatively active atmosphere warmer than if this particular kind of atmosphere weren’t there. By extension, one could claim – and this is after all what the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis’ is all about – that the stronger the rGHE, the stronger its warming effect.

Now, as far as I’m concerned, this is a prediction that should be possible to test. Or else, what good is it?

Again, what is the strictest definition of the rGHE? What is its ‘surface warming mechanism’ supposed to be, in the simplest of terms? We went through this in Part 1, where what was defined as the “greenhouse effect” of clouds was overwhelmed by their opposing “albedo effect”, leading to an overall…

View original post 2,688 more words

Comments
  1. Hans Jelbring says:

    No it doesn´t.
    This post is identifying an important parameter which is that the so called “Greenhouse Effect” has to be a regional quantity.

    Let me start to with some essentials.

    Fact 1. There is a difference between the OBSERVED average surface temperature of earth and the OBSERVED average temperature of earth seen from space. This temperature difference is calculated by NASA as 33-34 Kelvin. Average temperature 288K minus the black body temperature of earth 254.3K = 33.6K. See http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html or
    Goggle earth fact sheet.

    Fact 2. NASA is calculating the GLOBAL “Greenhouse Effect” as the difference between the OBSERVED average surface temperature of earth and the OBSERVED average temperage of earth seen from space.

    The proper definition of the regional “Greenhouse Effect, RGE ” is thus: RGE is the difference between the OBSERVED regional average surface temperature of earth and the OBSERVED regional average temperature seen from space.

    RGE can quite easily be calculated for specific regions. I have done so many years ago. The maximum RGE is found in the Amazon region (about 55K) and the smallest at the South Pole
    (about 0K). Investigating RGE gives the answer to what factors are affecting GE and how much. It turns out that carbon dioxide hardly affects it at all.

    The definition above is independent of what physical processes are causing it which is fine. The name “Greenhouse Effect” is of course a very inappropriate name since it assumes that greenhouse gases are causing GE without investigating other processes that influence the quantitative number i global GE. Furthermore a greenhouse is shielded by a glass cover and the that is not the case for the atmosphere.

  2. Arfur Bryant says:

    [“There are no empirical observations from the real Earth system supporting the notion of a net radiative surface warming effect of having H2O in the atmosphere above.”]

    Not only that, but I haven’t seen any empirical observations from the real Earth system supporting the notion of a net radiative surface warming effect of having CO2 in the atmosphere above, either!

    [“What the rGHE proponents are in fact doing, is simply ignoring the larger ‘cooling’ effect of having a radiatively active atmosphere and focusing only on the smaller (alleged/assumed/postulated) ‘warming’ effect, and then claiming that this smaller (alleged/assumed/postulated) ‘warming’ effect is what makes Earth’s global mean surface temperature as balmy as it is.”]

    I’m glad Okulaer (quite rightly) put those parentheses in, as there is no demonstrated scientific mechanism by which, globally, CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively anyway.

    Thanks for the post.

  3. Derek Alker says:

    Err, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi (somewhat unwisely for his career prospects) studied how does the radiative transfer version of greenhouse effect “theory” work without James Hansen’s (his boss at the time..) assumed positive water vapour feedback assumption. Simple answer, it does not, the best Miskolczi could manage was a constant effect. Hence Hansen got him sacked…

    Yes, obviously due to the heat capacity of the oceans, and of water vapour in the air, and the energies of phase changes of water from solid, to liquid, to gas, in any direction, then water in all it’s states in the oceans and in the atmosphere has to be, and indeed is, a negative, and THE dominant feedback. One simple illustration, clouds, act as a parasol by day and as a blanket by night, they reduce the direction of temperature change at earth’s surface, by day, and by night, which equals a negative feedback, NOT a positive feedback as Hansen HAD TO assume. Also remembering that water vapour IS lighter than air, and so humidity (also) causes convection (not just sensible heat differences), hence we have clouds up there…

    Within Miskolczi’s paper in the assumptions it is stated, and remember this is standard GH “theory” in radiative transfer form (remembering he was taken to NASA for his work / calculations on GH “theory”, by Hansen, so we can be pretty sure this IS the “theory”), that, earth’s surface is treated as a black body. It has no heat capacity, to name just one.

    If I may, as so many seem to NOT understand what a black body is, nor what a grey body IS, it is worth refreshing ourselves of what the black body concept actually IS. Please also consider that all versions of GH “theory” are explained in “black body”, and so many currently talk about climate in “black body” terms (without realizing it I suspect) YET, I am pretty sure earth and it’s climate system is Actual Thermodynamic Reality (ATR).

    The black body concept is of an imaginary black body surface, of no mass, in a vacuum. The imaginary, and therefore unphysical black body surface absorbs and emits all incident electromagnetic (EM) radiation perfectly (without loss). The BB surface temperature for the total absorbed EM radiation is described by the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation. This equation is only for a black body surface. The BB surface absorbs EM radiation, instantly reaching the temperature described by the S/B equation. It then instantly emits all the energy as thermal radiation, returning instantly to absolute zero, and therefore ceasing to exist… Sorry, couldn’t resist a little joke, but that is the concept..

    It is often the basis of many peoples arguments at present that a black body has mass, this is not the case, that is not the concept, and if that is the basis of an argument then the emperor indeed has no clothes on, because a black body surface has no mass. THAT is the concept.

    Ok, to take things a little further, Wien’s law is also, like the S/B equation, ONLY for a black body. So, peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount emitted are all black body assumptions, that ONLY apply to a black body.

    It should be apparent now that virtually all versions and explanations of how our planets climate system works are being explained, and I think quite often without it being realized that it is being explained in “black body”, but, earth’s climate system is most definitely actual thermodynamic reality. Quite a different thing….

    When one looks up what a grey body IS one finds it is merely a black body with the addition of albedo ONLY. A grey body then is NOT ATR, as many seem to think it is.

    If this is important what does the black body concept and a grey body as currently used in climatology omit that we know happens almost all the time, and from time to time in ATR?
    A black body, and a “grey body” both omit –
    i) Thermal mass of the solid / liquid / gas.
    ii) Conduction gains or losses of sensible heat.
    iii) Latent heat gains or losses.
    iv) Energy gains or losses due to change of state.
    v) The physical properties of the solid, liquid. or gas.
    vi) Changes in physical properties of the solid / liquid / gas with change of state.

    Another problem area of note when discussing climate. Divorced from the physics of reality averages, ie a GMT of 14.5C, and unphysical (black and grey body based) explanations. Neat trick, but a trick all the same….

    We might as well be discussing how to cure a sick unicorn, that is reportedly in a field nearby…..

    yours,
    Derek Alker.

  4. Kristian says:

    Thanks, Tallbloke 🙂

  5. tom0mason says:

    I always assumed that Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse nailed the coffin shut on Svante Arrhenius theory. Apparently not, so many still believe in GHG capturing and holding IR energy, and then thermalizing this captured IR as the rGHE. AFAIK no such effect has been conclusively measured.

    As I have been told in no uncertain terms that the rGHE is real beacause meterologists in the US have an adjustment for rGHE in their weather computer models. It may be true that they have such an adjustment but to say that it for rGHE is to stretch credibility beyond it’s Young’s elastic modulus. The same can he said for the muslem outreach program that is NASA.

  6. Hans Jelbring says:

    The question in the head line should be answered by IPCC. They claim to provide information which is of a scientific standard. It is their duty to provide an answer but such a one has been missing despite thousands of pages of BS in a number of reports during two-three decades. It is not the duty of the public to prove IPCC being wrong since they are not complying with scientific methods and established experience (observational evidence). IPCC is simply using the concept of (faked) science to boost their propaganda message which is that humans are guilty of climate change. They are using the well known tactic of scaring people to get what they want (funding + political power).

  7. Hans Jelbring says:

    Dear Derek,

    There are many reasons to remind scientist of what a black body is and what the related definiton tells. However, talking about the sun it works fine, which emits EMR from a gas and talking about the emission from planetary atmospheres it works well as an approximation. (It is lousy for Mars and excellent for Venus) It should however be remembered that Venus radiates mostly from solid matter (clouds) and not from a gas. The situation in earth´s atmosphere is complicated but lots of IR is radiated from solid or liquid particles and not from atmospheric gases. The CAGW hypothesis rest on the hypothesis that almost all emission is taking palce from atmospheric gases .IR radiation from gases and solid matter is profoundly different regardless of what the SB law states.

  8. Hans Jelbring says: November 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    “No it doens´t.”

    No it doesn’t what?

    “This post is identifying an important parameter which is taht the so called “Greenhouse Effect” has to be a regional quantity”

    Nonsense, Lapse rate is a regional quantity!
    “Greenhouse Effect” is deliberate fraud from NASA Goddard! This above thread is an attempt to expose that fraud.

    “The definition above is independant of what physical processes are causing it which is fine. The name “Grenhouse Effect” is of course a very inappropiate name since it assumes that greenhouse gases are causing GE without investigating other processes that influence the quantitative number i global GE. Furthermore a greenhouse is shielded by a glass cover and the that is not the case for the atmosphere.”

    Dr. Jelbring,
    I know your reputation and agree with your conclusions.
    Your definition above only tries to perpetuate the fantasy of the original “Greenhouse Effect”, with thermal radiative flux (W/m^2) downward from the much colder atmosphere in the direction of a greater field strength at each frequency and each direction. I am sure this is not your intent It is however another attempt to redefine something that is not. There is a real measurable difference in the surface and 6 km air thermometric temperatures. Your satellite radiometers cannot possibly replicate this without gross fantasy assumptions! So the fraud continues. The satellites have limited band coverage and limited field of regard. Not one of them measures the total radiative intensity of this planet in any direction. The Planck satellite at L2 could measure such, but is deliberately looking the other way. So far, we have no way of measuring the effective radiating solid angle of this “atmosphere”, with its increasing transmissivity at altitude. Nothing from the radiometers can be implied, only the measured radiance over a limited waveband into a limited solid angle. All else is mear fantasy. UAH tries to imply temperature somewhere unknown, a mistake. RSS shows the differences of repeatable measurements so at least give some useful information. Perhaps some day we will discover “what” is being measured.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Even if there was a greenhouse effect it would mostly be due to water vapour, not CO2.

  10. Kristian says:

    Jelbring,

    According to your definition of the rGHE (yet another one), the Congo sector has a blackbody emission temperature to space (based on the LW flux through the ToA) of 251K (-22C). This would give an rGHE (in degrees) of [298 – 251 =] 47K. The same value for the Sahara-Sahel sector would be [301.5 – 265 =] 36.5K. Which would lead you to conclude that the “greenhouse surface warming effect” of the Congo atmosphere is 10-11K stronger than the Sahara-Sahel ‘GH sfc warming effect’. Only problem is, the mean surface temp of the former sector rather turns out be several degrees lower than that of the latter. Goes to show there’s something seriously wrong with the way this ‘effect’ is estimated.

  11. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says:
    November 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Even if there was a greenhouse effect it would mostly be due to water vapour, not CO2.

    Based on what Jelbring found:
    “RGE [regional greenhouse effect] can quite easily be calculated for specific regions. I have done so many years ago. The maximum RGE is found in the Amazon region (about 55K) and the smallest at the South Pole (about 0K).”

    you are very right. This (outgoing LW) effect almost exclusively depends on the amount of atmospheric water.

  12. Kristian says:

    An interesting aspect of this assessment of regional rGHE is how there is absolutely no balance between incoming and outgoing radiative flux through the ToA.

    The Congo sector: 287.4 W/m2 IN, 224.7 W/m2 OUT >> +62.7 W/m^2
    The Sahara-Sahel sector: 267.5 W/m^2 IN, 279.8 W/m^2 OUT >> -12.3 W/m^2

    This comes as no surprise. We are only looking at regional systems here, not at the total (global) system. Energy is moved from region to region throughout the world without ever being radiated to space while doing so. So this energy would fall outside the radiative budget of these two particular ‘subsystems’.

    Is this the reason why Congo is cooler than the Sahara-Sahel, despite having an isolated rGHE stronger by 10-11 degrees?

    I could understand why rGHE proponents would want to claim that.

    However, it won’t help the hypothesis trying to locate this ‘missing’ (non-radiated) energy.

    The thing is, what happens in the equatorial belt? Over land? There is no significant advection close to the surface towards the north or south. Air (and energy) is rather coming in from the north and from the south. Or it moves along the equator. If anything, at the surface, equatorial continental regions would get extra energy IN on average, by advection towards the central low. The overwhelming majority of the energy coming directly in from overhead (the Sun) would be disposed of straight back up, convected vertically towards the tropical tropopause, still comfortably within the same sector.

    What happens in the equatorial belt is that there is convergence at the surface and divergence at the tropopause. The energy not being radiated away on their way up to the tropopause (inside the sector), will be radiated away rather on its way north or south to the subtropics (outside the sector).

    At this point I would like to quote the old textbook that Konrad has brought to our attention a couple of times. It says:

    “Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ [InterTropical Convergence Zone] has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).”
    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html

    As you can well read from the highlighted part, energy is definitely being brought out of the equatorial belt before it can be radiated to space. But it happens aloft, not significantly at the surface.

    The point I want to make is this: If you want to argue that energy is being ‘trapped’ by gases and clouds in the troposphere, and that this somehow constitutes the rGHE, then you cannot also appeal to “energy being brought out of the region by other means offsetting a regional warming”, because then the energy you claimed to be ‘trapped’ and which would then warm the troposphere and consequently the surface below, wouldn’t have been ‘trapped’ at all to begin with. It managed to get all the way from the surface up to the top of convection/cloudtop (by deep moist convection) and only from there moving poleward and out of the region. Radiated to space along the way. So your whole ‘warming mechanism’ would no longer be fit for purpose. It would no longer be at all.

  13. A C Osborn says:

    About 4 years ago on the “Open Mind” forum there were some interesting posts by Tim Curtins about the lack of correlation between CO2 and Temps.
    What he found was a correlation between Temp, Pressure and Moisture, here is one of his comments on a fascinating thread.
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-1216

  14. Derek Alker says:

    Dear Hans,
    Hans Jelbring says:
    November 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    “It is not the duty of the public to prove IPCC being wrong since they are not complying with scientific methods and established experience (observational evidence).”

    Errr, the (peoples) scientific method is for the people to check what the “experts” are telling them is true, or that it is our best understanding at present. I agree the IPCC plainly fails the (peoples) scientific method, and it is unphysical, therefore what the supposed IPCC “experts” are telling us is pseudo science.

    Hans Jelbring says:
    November 16, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    ” The CAGW hypothesis rest on the hypothesis that almost all emission is taking palce from atmospheric gases .IR radiation from gases and solid matter is profoundly different regardless of what the SB law states.”

    Errr, yes, obviously, a point I was trying to make, whilst including fluids as well. Do we agree then that black body and grey body based “explanations” of Actual Thermodynamic Reality must be incorrect?

    yours,
    Derek Alker.

  15. Derek Alker says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    November 16, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    “The satellites have limited band coverage and limited field of regard. Not one of them measures the total radiative intensity of this planet in any direction. The Planck satellite at L2 could measure such, but is deliberately looking the other way. So far, we have no way of measuring the effective radiating solid angle of this “atmosphere”, with its increasing transmissivity at altitude. Nothing from the radiometers can be implied, only the measured radiance over a limited waveband into a limited solid angle. All else is mear fantasy. UAH tries to imply temperature somewhere unknown, a mistake. RSS shows the differences of repeatable measurements so at least give some useful information. Perhaps some day we will discover “what” is being measured.”

    I was not aware of this, but it makes a lot of sense. Thank you for posting.

  16. Derek Alker says:

    Kristian says:
    November 16, 2014 at 8:41 pm
    “http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html

    As you can well read from the highlighted part, energy is definitely being brought out of the equatorial belt before it can be radiated to space. But it happens aloft, not significantly at the surface.

    The point I want to make is this: If you want to argue that energy is being ‘trapped’ by gases and clouds in the troposphere, and that this somehow constitutes the rGHE, then you cannot also appeal to “energy being brought out of the region by other means offsetting a regional warming”, because then the energy you claimed to be ‘trapped’ and which would then warm the troposphere and consequently the surface below, wouldn’t have been ‘trapped’ at all to begin with. It managed to get all the way from the surface up to the top of convection/cloudtop (by deep moist convection) and only from there moving poleward and out of the region. Radiated to space along the way. So your whole ‘warming mechanism’ would no longer be fit for purpose. It would no longer be at all.”

    Very good point, very well made. Thank you for posting.

  17. Will Janoschka says:

    Derek Alker says:November 16, 2014 at 9:51 pm
    Hans Jelbring says: November 16, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    (” The CAGW hypothesis rest on the hypothesis that almost all emission is taking palce from atmospheric gases .IR radiation from gases and solid matter is profoundly different regardless of what the SB law states.”)

    “Errr, yes, obviously, a point I was trying to make, whilst including fluids as well. Do we agree then that black body and grey body based “explanations” of Actual Thermodynamic Reality must be incorrect?”

    I have no idea of what you may mean by “Actual Thermodynamic Reality”, please explain!
    The whole CAGW fantasy depends on acceptance of Hansen’s two stream approximation of thermal radiative flux transfer. This is the FRAUD! All of the required radiative exitance can easily take place from the atmosphere with its variable WV latent heat converting to sensible heat within the atmosphere then dispatched outward via thermal EMR from that same atmospheric borne H2O..
    Some radiative emissions can originate from the surface, but are trivial, in comparison.
    The only explanation needed is how and why this planet controls its atmospheric WV so very carefully? Your know it all, Climate Clowns, not only do not know, they have never even bothered to ask! -will-

  18. suricat says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    “This post is identifying an important parameter which is that the so called “Greenhouse Effect” has to be a regional quantity.”

    Whilst I concur, it doesn’t really go into enough depth, only ‘briefly’ mentions values for atmospheric liquid water and doesn’t get fully into the extra ‘parameter’ of ‘latent heat’ for ‘solid/liquid/gas’ phase changes at Earth’s surface or atmosphere. Only ‘specific heat’ is mentioned!

    “Fact 1.”

    Yes. Isn’t this mostly because WV condenses on the ‘glass’ of the upper atmosphere and releases ‘latent heat’ which radiates “everywhere”?

    “Fact 2.”

    Yet another average.

    “Furthermore a greenhouse is shielded by a glass cover and the that is not the case for the atmosphere.”

    Oh yes it is Hans. The “glass cover” is the survival altitude for H2O as a gas, liquid, or solid within Earth’s atmosphere. Luckily, it exists and Earth contains her water at the surface.

    Best regards, Ray.

  19. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: November 17, 2014 at 1:32 am
    Hans Jelbring says: November 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    (“This post is identifying an important parameter which is that the so called “Greenhouse Effect” has to be a regional quantity.”)

    (“Furthermore a greenhouse is shielded by a glass cover and the that is not the case for the atmosphere.”)

    “Oh yes it is Hans. The “glass cover” is the survival altitude for H2O as a gas, liquid, or solid within Earth’s atmosphere. Luckily, it exists and Earth contains her water at the surface.”

    Thank you Ray.,
    A truly significant POV, that must be considered for understanding. Why does it not all go away?

  20. tchannon says:

    “Why does it not all go away?”

    Hot air is like that.

  21. Will Janoschka says:

    tchannon says: November 17, 2014 at 3:34 am

    (“Why does it not all go away?”)
    “Hot air is like that.”
    Yes from politicians, Why is WV so different?

  22. AndyG55 says:

    @ Hans.

    “RGE can quite easily be calculated for specific regions. I have done so many years ago. The maximum RGE is found in the Amazon region (about 55K) and the smallest at the South Pole”

    Hans, how well do these calculations of RGE correlate with the height of the tropopause ?

  23. AndyG55 says:

    added……… once water vapour is taken into account !

  24. AndyG55 says:

    I should have read Kristian’s posts first .. oh well. 🙂

  25. gbaikie says:

    “”The proper definition of the regional “Greenhouse Effect, RGE ” is thus: RGE is the difference between the OBSERVED regional average surface temperature of earth and the OBSERVED regional average temperature seen from space.””

    Well, if observe the sun from the surface, and observe the sun from above the atmosphere, there is a difference of intensity of sunlight.
    Is that also the greenhouse effect?

  26. Will Janoschka says:

    AndyG55 says: November 17, 2014 at 5:03 am

    added……… once water vapour is taken into account !

    At both poles of this planet please explain the very low negative lapse rate and very low surface temperature? Does the tropopause control surface temperature?

  27. Hans Jelbring says:

    Kristian says:
    November 16, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    You seem to be quite aware of basic knowledge in meteorology but there is one factor which is not well understood or rather not much emphasized. Look at a regional area over a time spanning several years. The best first approximation of energy flows is that the Input and output equal each other regardless of what specific physical processes that are at work. This is called a “steady state” system. The next question is to ask how the energy content in the atmosphere is distributed within that region. For most parts of earth the dominating physical process is the equalization of energy per mass unit in the lower troposphere. This process is maximized when the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is -g/Cp. (-9.8K/km) Observational evidence is partially confirmed by the US 1976 standard atmosphere which has a temperature lapse rate 0f -6.5K/km. The theoretical basis is the second law of thermodynamics correctly applied to energy and not temperature in a gravity field.

    The -g/Cp value is a lower limit if the atmosphere is hydrodynamically stable meaning no air would sink or ascend. However, a hydrodynamic stable atmosphere does not need to have reached an energetic equilibrium. Inversions can exist in a stable atmosphere.

    Advection and convection is dominating over radiation processes when producing an energetic equilibrium in the lower troposphere. The fact is that every afternoon over sunlit land areas the temperature lapse rate will be very close to -g/Cp confirming the rearrangement of the atmospheric energy to be equally distributed in each mass unit. Some birds know about this when they hover over newly plowed fields which absorbed much solar energy and has a low albedo. The ascending air makes the energy equalizing easy..

    Radiation processes are less effective than convective (turbulent) processes to produce the energetic equilibrium per mass unit. This situation is gradually changing in the tropopause and in the stratosphere where radiative processes are dominating. The energetic equlibrium has hard to develop over polar areas since subsidence produces temperature inversions which is most developed during winter. Temperature inversions also develop at the surface in deserts during nights but then the temperature lapse rate is very close to -g/Cp during afternoons. It is easily udnerstood that the observed temperature lapse rate over days or years will not reach down to the -g/Cp value.

  28. Hans Jelbring says:

    Kristian says:
    November 16, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    You state “As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence.”

    This is all correct but it might also be interesting to discuss an extreme.
    1. Living at 59N and having been above the polar circle many times I have expereienced “polar”conditions.It is important to incorporate global circulation when discussing “RGE”
    2. The difference between summer and winter is for sure great above the polar circle.
    3. The cold air which is produced at the surface during winter is driving the major circulation from poles to the equator. This has been extensively described by (the late) professor Marcel Leroux in several books. He termed the phenomenon Mobile Polar Highs (MPH). This is basically a physical force which I metioned in my thesis unrecognized by mainstream meteorologists.
    4. Consider the area from 70N to the pole during winter. All the energy flux emitted as IR radiation to space is carried by high altitude winds to this areas as you describe in your text. The amazing part is that the OLR is about 150-160 W/m^2 despite there is zero solar radiation reaching the area.
    5. Seen in this perspective -50C at the polar surce is warm compared to absolute zero -273C.
    Imagine that you could stop the convective energy flow to this area and replace it with a number of nuclear blocks producing 1000 MW each. You would need some millions of such blocks along the 70N meridian. In fact you have to build one each 6:th meter.

  29. Hans Jelbring says:

    suricat says:
    November 17, 2014 at 1:32 am

    “Fact 1.”

    Yes. Isn’t this mostly because WV condenses on the ‘glass’ of the upper atmosphere and releases ‘latent heat’ which radiates “everywhere”?

    My answer is: No it isn´t. First the impact of condensation processes in the temperature lapse rate (read energy equilibrium situation) is well undeerstood in meteorology. It has an influence locally centered on the altitude where it happens but condensation has a minor influence. What matters is the impact of clouds on albedo and IR radiation.
    Secondly, your argumnet is simply not valid when there is no (or minor) condensation areas.condensation rpocesses taking place as in deserts and in polar areas.

    “Fact 2.”
    Yet another average. (Yes, I agree that averages have to be used by caution)

    “Furthermore a greenhouse is shielded by a glass cover and the that is not the case for the atmosphere.”

    Oh yes it is Hans. The “glass cover” is the survival altitude for H2O as a gas, liquid, or solid within Earth’s atmosphere. Luckily, it exists and Earth contains her water at the surface.

    My answe is: I certainly disagree. A real greenhouse is based on removing the influence of convection. If you remove the roof you don´t have a greenhouse. Solar irradiation is providing 1) the warm temperature (blocking free convection) and 2) the “food” for the plants. You can provide both with a radiator and lamps. The analogy and the name “Greenhouse Effec” is simply inadequate for these reasons and also because “greenhouse gases” have little effect on the temperature gradient in our real atmosphere. The latter argument can be substantiated by identifying all the physical processes producing the temperature lapse rate in our real atmosphere and quantifying the impact of each one.

  30. Hans Jelbring says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    “No it doens´t.” No it doesn’t what?
    (There is a question in the sub title. I anwered it.)

    “This post is identifying an important parameter which is taht the so called “Greenhouse Effect” has to be a regional quantity”

    Nonsense, Lapse rate is a regional quantity! (This is what I also claim. Maybe I have expressed myself in an unclear way?)

    “Greenhouse Effect” is deliberate fraud from NASA Goddard! This above thread is an attempt to expose that fraud.

    I disagree since it is quite obvious that the observed temperatue of the surface of earth is higher than the observed temperature of the atmosphere from where the bulk of IR to space takes place.
    The fraud is to claim that the observed temperature difference is caused by so called greenhouse gases (James Hansen influencing IPCC might be the biggest villain) Water vapour has a minor effect but still far mor than carbon dioxide. Clouds have an effect but they are not made by a gas.
    Added to that the situation in Venus´ atmosphere constitutes what I call “irrefutable observational evidence” that the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by the distribution of energy stored in its atmosphere. Such evidence cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to be called a scientist.The temperature lapse rate is very close to -g/Cp indicating an equal total energy per mass unit from its surface to about 40 km altitude.

  31. Hans Jelbring says:

    AndyG55 says:
    November 17, 2014 at 5:01 am

    You are asking:
    “Hans, how well do these calculations of RGE correlate with the height of the tropopause ?”

    I find your question very relevant.
    In a way you already know the answer since I have mentioned that the RGE over the Amazonas is about 55C and the RGE over the south pole is about 0C. The RGE is very much affected by a clear sky and it is also affected by the altitude of the surface area. Solid matter (liquid) radiates much better than a gas.

    You do know that the tropopause is much lower in polar areas than in equatorial areas. To me this indicates that the bulk of IR energy from GASES are leaving earth at a lower altitude in polar areas.
    However IR radiation from clous and all types of particles cannot be forgotten. You might know that particles less than 2-3 microns never settle beacause of gravity. They have to be removed by precipitation.

    An adequate answer has to rest on the identification of all the physical processes involed in creating the observed “regional” temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. This might be quite a work but it is possible to achieve IMO.

  32. Brian H says:

    Millions of gigawatts? The bind moggles.

  33. AndyG55 says:

    Hans,

    An approach may be to look at the tropopause height over very dry areas, try to initially take water vapour out of the picture. (is that even possible?)

    Maybe some sort of correlation could be determined between RGE and tropopause height.?

    Then maybe look at semi-arid area to see what happens with a small amount of WV.

    As you say.. a lot of work involved, because of the massive influence of WV and other confounding factors.

  34. AndyG55 says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    At both poles of this planet please explain the very low negative lapse rate and very low surface temperature? Does the tropopause control surface temperature?

    Isn’t the tropopause over the poles at about -55ºC?

    If the temperature of the surface drops below this, wouldn’t a negative gradient have to form ?

    I think it may be more correct to say that the tropopause is controlled by the height where radiation takes precedence. Thus, in most cases, it is more likely that the height of the tropopause is controlled by the surface temperature and the lapse rate.

    The poles are a nuisance with this interpretation… unless you consider the Earth’s atmosphere as being “semi-tenuous” and always attempting to balance itself out, but never being able to get there.

    Venus, Uranus would have non-tenuous atmospheres, hence the surface temps are driven mainly by the thermal gradient effect and conduction.

    Mars.. very tenuous atmosphere.. large diurnal temps driven mainly by radiative effects.

    Earth, semi-tenuous, so we get this varying mix of convection (vertical and lateral air movements), thermal gradient, conduction and radiative effects which makes analysis much more fun. 🙂

  35. “Thus, in most cases, it is more likely that the height of the tropopause is controlled by the surface temperature and the lapse rate.”

    The height of the tropopause is controlled primarily by the temperature of the stratosphere which is in turn dependent on ozone amounts.

    Warmer stratosphere equals lower tropopause and vice versa.

    Hence my contention that climate variations on at least the millennial scale are a result of solar variations affecting the ozone creation / destruction process differently above equator and poles so as to shift jets and climate zones latitudinally.

    If there were no ozone in the stratosphere there would be no temperature inversion at that height, convection could freely go on upward adiabatically and there would be no tropopause.

    In practice every planetary atmosphere has a ‘pause’ at various heights due to composition variations.

  36. ren says:

    Does not alike this dog’s head?

    Polar vortex in the north will now create two centers in accordance with the magnetic field.


    In the stratosphere can see the beginning of the next wave, which pushes south the jet stream.

    There has been also an increase in cosmic ray (GCR).

  37. ren says:

    This is the effect of the distribution of ozone.

  38. Kristian says:

    AndyG55 says, November 17, 2014 at 5:01 am:

    “(…) how well do these calculations of RGE correlate with the height of the tropopause ?”

    They correlate to some general extent, but in reality not at all. The tropopause would be much higher in the tropics than above the polar regions because 1) There is MUCH more H2O in the tropospheric column, 2) The air starting from the surface holds a MUCH higher temperature, and 3) Because of much stronger solar heating and much higher evaporation rates, convection is able to gain MUCH greater vertical momentum.

    The troposphere likewise (for the same reasons) inflates in the temperate and polar regions during summer, and contracts during winter, by up to several kilometres. It basically wobbles back and forth from pole to pole from season to season, anchored at the equatorial tropopause which remains pretty much constant troughout the year.

    So if you find a RGE (as defined by Jelbring) at 55K over the Amazon Basin (47K over the Congo Basin) and probably even higher than both over the West Pacific Warm Pool, it is simply the result of the vast amounts of H2O found in the tropical troposphere. Even above the (by tropical standards) dry Sahara-Sahel region, the RGE would be 36.5K, larger than the global mean by 3-4 degrees.

    But this is where the correlation fails. The tropopause height above the Congo (at the equator) is not really much higher at all than above the Sahara-Sahel (at around 15-20 degrees north):

    As you can see, it remains high all the way out to the subtropical highs (and the subtropical jetstreams) at about 30-35 degrees away from the equator, where it all of a sudden drops like a stone.

    So while the Congo lies beneath the big gray cloud in the middle, the Sahara-Sahel lies at the northern outskirts of it, towards the cloud-free section, but still comfortably south of the drop.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann-calculated emission temperature to space (based on flux out through the ToA) of the Congo sector is 251K (-22 C), while the same for the Sahara-Sahel sector would be 265K (-8 C). Neither of these calculated (theoretical) temperatures have anything to do with the actual tropopause above these two sectors, nor any other atmospheric level for that matter.

    All we actually know is the surface temperature and the ToA flux. The surface radiative flux and the ToA radiative temperature are only calculated from these.

    We could probably figure out the actual, physical tropopause temperature over the two sectors, from radiosonde data (or from knowing the regional lapse rates and tropopause heights), but like I said, it has no bearing on the ToA flux at all. The two are completely unrelated.

    Remember, the surface temperature is NOT determined by the tropopause temperature + lapse rate DOWN. The heat moves the opposite way. The surface temperature is set first. It is where the tropospheric lapse rate STARTS, not where it ENDS.

  39. Kristian says:

    Stephen Wilde says, November 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm:

    “The height of the tropopause is controlled primarily by the temperature of the stratosphere which is in turn dependent on ozone amounts.

    Warmer stratosphere equals lower tropopause and vice versa.”

    Here is that strange notion again, that the ozone layer is somehow just ‘placed’ where it is, to create a thermal barrier to upward convection.

    The centre of gravity on Earth is not at the top of the atmosphere. Gravity is pulling down, not up. If a higher level of the atmosphere gets colder and contracts, it thus shrinks from the top, not from the bottom. There is still as much weight of atmosphere above the troposphere as before, only less volume. So why would the troposphere expand if it didn’t itself warm?

    No, the troposphere grows and shrinks of its own accord. Dependent only on surface heat input. The tropopause and hence stratosphere falls and lifts with it, the stratosphere being lighter and lying on top of it.

  40. wayne says:

    @November 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm:
    Should that not state — “dependent only on surface or inter-tropospheric heat input”? (like even when there exists complete cloud cover)? If not, why only the input at the surface?

    Everything else said seems correct. Thanks for correcting November 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm so I don’t have to. 😉

  41. wayne says:

    November 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm
    [ http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2014/650x366_11160949_hd22.jpg ]
    This is the effect of the distribution of ozone.

    Why? The frigid cold and very dense air hugs the surface and just spreads along the surface like a spilt glass of water over the kitchen floor if there are no countering forces or barriers to prevent this from happening. There is little or no covection under cloud cover per the potential temperature gradient present. It can linger hugging the surface for days or even weeks. I can’t see why you think ozone as the forcing of this arctic cold front? Have any evidence?

  42. ren says:

    Waves in the stratosphere, causing increased pressure over the Arctic Circle. These waves are created when solar activity decreases.

  43. ren says:

    Waves in the stratosphere, causing increased pressure over the Arctic Circle. These waves are created when solar activity decreases.

  44. ren says:

    Wayne is this proof enough for you?

  45. ren says:

    Sorry.

  46. ren says:

    Polar vortex closes arctic air inside. If it is shifted, air from the Polar Circle beside the vortex enters the south. This is happening now in America.

  47. wayne says:

    Ren, not by itself. That is at the 500 pascal very, very high above with very little mass present. Are you saying this is some ‘radiative only’ event?

    It’s frikin cold here, or it was a few hours ago, -12F below freezing and my barometer is sitting right at 30.5 inHg, quite high, so there is no ‘low’ here at least. But the air density is very high, 1.35 kg/m³ and that is why it is so cold with that high pressure, it has been so for over a week but little sun at the surface during this last seven days either to mix in the releaticely warmer upper air. But, now it is clear this morning, temps are finally going to go quickly upward, there is going to be convection again, finally, it will mix over the next few days. Look at the radiosonde soundings. But it being ozone at 5 hPa causing this? No, I don’t just accept that cause/effect without some further good correlation behind such a statement.

  48. Kristian says:

    wayne says, November 17, 2014 at 4:38 pm:

    “@November 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm:
    Should that not state — “dependent only on surface or inter-tropospheric heat input”? (like even when there exists complete cloud cover)?”

    You’re right 🙂

  49. Kristian says:

    A little bit about tropopause height (by Bart Geerts & Edward Linacre):
    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

    Heck, I’ll just quote it all:

    “The height of the tropopause depends on the location, notably the latitude […]. It also depends on the season […]. Thus, it is about 16 km high over Australia at year-end, and between 12-16 km at midyear, being lower at the higher latitudes. At latitudes above 60 [degrees], the tropopause is less than 9-10 km above sea level; the lowest is less than 8 km high, above Antarctica and above Siberia and northern Canada in winter. The highest average tropopause is over the oceanic warm pool of the western equatorial Pacific, about 17.5 km high, and over Southeast Asia, during the summer monsoon, the tropopause occasionally peaks above 18 km. In other words, cold conditions lead to a lower tropopause, obviously because of less convection.

    Deep convection (thunderstorms) in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or over mid-latitude continents in summer, continuously push the tropopause upwards and as such deepen the troposphere. This is because thunderstorms mix the tropospheric air at a moist adiabatic lapse rate. In the upper troposphere, this lapse rate is essentially the same as the dry adiabatic rate of 10K/km. So a deepening by 1 km reduces the tropopause temperature by 10K. Therefore, in areas where (or at times when) the tropopause is exceptionally high, the tropopause temperature is also very low, sometimes below -80 [degrees] C. Such low temperatures are not found anywhere else in the Earth’s atmosphere, at any level, except in the winter stratosphere over Antarctica.

    On the other hand, colder regions have a lower tropopause, obviously because convective overturning is limited there, due to the negative radiation balance at the surface. In fact, convection is very rare in polar regions; most of the tropospheric mixing at middle and high latitudes is forced by frontal systems in which uplift is forced rather than spontaneous (convective). This explains the paradox that tropopause temperatures are lowest where the surface temperatures are highest.

    The tropopause height does not gradually drop from low to high latitudes. Rather, it drops rapidly in the area of the subtropical and polar front jets (STJ and PFJ respectively in the Figure [below]), as shown in the Palmen-Newton model of the general circulation ([…] Fig [below]). Especially when the jet is strong and the associated front at low levels intense, then the tropopause height drops suddenly across the jet stream. Sometimes the tropopause actually folds down to 500 hPa (5.5 km) and even lower, just behind a well-defined cold front. The subsided stratospheric air within such a tropopause fold (or in the less pronounced tropopause dip) is much warmer than the tropospheric air it replaces, at the same level, and this warm advection aloft (around 300 hPa) largely explains the movement of the frontal low (at the surface) into the cold airmass, a process called occlusion […].

    A frontal system is followed by a Rossby wave trough in the upper troposphere […], in other words such a trough corresponds with tropopause dip. An example of a wintertime tropopause map over North America shows at least two such dips. These dips are associated with Rossby wave troughs and therefore vorticity maxima […], and consequently frontal lows at the surface […]. Generally the deeper the tropopause dip (or fold), the more intense the associated frontal disturbance.”

  50. wayne says:

    Good article and graphic Kristian. I often look at such renderings and wish they would go ahead and draw three plots. One for winter, one for summer, and one for what it looks like at an equinox to get more complete picture.

  51. ren says:

    Wayne so why have a month before I knew what will winter in America? I showed you the evidence, and you can not see them?
    ren says:
    September 18, 2014 at 1:08 pm
    Let’s see the actual shape of the polar vortex. You can see where the air will flow from the north (after the edge of the dark area).

    ren says:
    September 24, 2014 at 7:31 am
    We can already see a lock polar vortex over eastern Siberia at an altitude of about 27 km.Jest a bad forecast for North America.

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-22.15,78.02,365

  52. Hans Jelbring says:

    Kristian and all;

    Your comments are getting more and more interesting. Hopefully I will come back tomorrow morning. If you (Kristian) naven´t read everything about Mobile Polar Highs written by the late professor Marcel Leroux, do it! You will benefit tremendously.since you will understand what he has found out.

  53. Will Janoschka says:

    Brian H says: November 17, 2014 at 8:52 am

    “Millions of gigawatts? The bind moggles.”

    A million gigaWatts is 10^15. The atmosphere via thermal EMR exits, to space 2 x 10^17 Watts continuously. The tropics into the hemisphere containing the Sun does most of it! The sheer magnitude is what lets earthlings accept the words of Climate Clowns!

  54. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: November 17, 2014 at 1:57 am

    “A truly significant POV, that must be considered for understanding. Why does it not all go away?”

    It’s down to the unique property of H2O. As a deep convecting cloud rises, It eventually achieves an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is ‘at’ the ‘triple point’ of water. Here’s a graph taken from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#mediaviewer/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

    At and above ‘this altitude’ (lowering pressures) H2O can’t exist in its ‘liquid’ (water) phase, forcing a ‘dry’ atmosphere that doesn’t convect well. Even where H2O populates the stratosphere at quite high temperatures, there can only be ‘ice’ or ‘vapour’ phases of H2O.

    This link on ‘snow hydrology’ shows ‘triple point’ comparisons between Earth, Mars and Venus (page down a bit). It’s PV=nRT again:

    http://www.civil.utah.edu/~cv5450/phases/phases.html

    Why does Earth ‘keep’ its water? Because really high in the atmosphere, where insolation is an ‘ionising’ radiation, H2O is rendered into the component atoms of the molecule. The hydrogen rises and floats away with the solar wind, but that doesn’t matter, the solar wind is mostly ‘ionised hydrogen’ in any case. The oxygen is heavier, hangs around in the form of ozone and ‘may/may not’ reform as ‘H2O/O2’.

    Other than that it gets complicated with atmospheric physics.

    A small afterthought. Wouldn’t we only need ‘free oxygen’ on Earth, for Earth to ‘produce’ water??? Anyone know?

    Perhaps the first item shows why thunder-heads ‘spread’ into their typical ‘anvil’ shape. Ice crystals don’t convect well. The Wikipedia page I took the graph from has a nice picture of a thunder-head (Cumulonimbus), with others:

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

    Wow this thread’s grown.

    Best regards, Ray.

  55. wayne says:

    “A small afterthought. Wouldn’t we only need ‘free oxygen’ on Earth, for Earth to ‘produce’ water??? ”
    And from whereth cometh the hydrogen Ray? 🙂

  56. Kristian says:

    ren says, November 17, 2014 at 8:13 pm:

    “Wayne so why have a month before I knew what will winter in America? I showed you the evidence, and you can not see them?”

    You’ve observed a definite connection. You haven’t necessarily established the direction of causation. Remember, tropical tropospheric airmasses ascending do a lot to drive the stratospheric Brewer-Dobson circulation. As wayne points out, at the poles, air, especially in winter, is dry and cold and thus tend to flow radially outward along the surface rather than rising up. This arrangement could just as easily pull in stratospheric air from above, being the tropospheric drain as opposed to the tropical intake.

  57. Kristian says:

    suricat says, November 17, 2014 at 1:32 am:

    “Whilst I concur, it doesn’t really go into enough depth, only ‘briefly’ mentions values for atmospheric liquid water and doesn’t get fully into the extra ‘parameter’ of ‘latent heat’ for ‘solid/liquid/gas’ phase changes at Earth’s surface or atmosphere. Only ‘specific heat’ is mentioned!”

    That’s because the post is specifically about the rGHE, H2O and radiation, not H2O and ‘latent heat’.

    You’re absolutely correct, of course. The whole H2O phase change thing (or its ‘heat capacity’) simply isn’t part of the rGHE hypothesis. Never was. Never will be. It is just assumed constant. Like convection. Clearly a big mistake.

  58. Will Janoschka says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    “Kristian and all; Your comments are getting more and more interesting. Hopefully I will come back tomorrow morning. If you (Kristian) naven´t read everything about Mobile Polar Highs written by the late professor Marcel Leroux, do it! You will benefit tremendously.since you will understand what he has found out.”

    Dr. Jelbring,
    Thank you for your continued interest in this thread. Please reconsider this position:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 17, 2014 at 6:38 am
    suricat says: November 17, 2014 at 1:32 am

    (‘Yes. Isn’t this mostly because WV condenses on the ‘glass’ of the upper atmosphere and releases ‘latent heat’ which radiates “everywhere”?”)

    “My answer is: No it isn´t. First the impact of condensation processes in the temperature lapse rate (read energy equilibrium situation) is well undeerstood in meteorology. It has an influence locally centered on the altitude where it happens but condensation has a minor influence. What matters is the impact of clouds on albedo and IR radiation.”
    —————————————————————-
    It is nothing to do with lapse rate. The sensible heat delivered to the atmosphere via condensation is 75 Joules per second m^2 of surface area. How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence. The WV variability within the atmosphere is the “only” determinant of surface temperature. What is it that determines atmospheric water vapor? WV is the control and, the principal source of energy to be radiated to space?
    In terms of atmospheric energy equilibrium it accounts for 5.8 x 10^6 Joules for each sq meter of surface area. Far far greater than the sensible heat and positional energy of this atmosphere. It is not energy storage, the radiative exitance is continuous and proportional to the generation of sensible heat. Latent energy is chemical and not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, until converted to sensible heat.

  59. Will Janoschka says:

    wayne says: November 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    (“A small afterthought. Wouldn’t we only need ‘free oxygen’ on Earth, for Earth to ‘produce’ water??? ”)
    “And from whereth cometh the hydrogen Ray? 🙂 ”

    Methane, we gots lotsa cowzies! 🙂

  60. Will Janoschka says:

    Technical question:
    Since cowzies are the main producer of natural gas what makes them fart so far underground? 🙂

  61. suricat says:

    wayne says: November 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    “And from whereth cometh the hydrogen Ray?”

    As you’ve “already” read wayne. From Sol’s ‘particulate emission’ (‘solar wind’)!

    Best regards, Ray.

  62. wayne says:

    Ok, I can see that, didn’t notice the reference but must have missed it reading too fast.

  63. ren says:

    Wayne my forecasts come true. I see no other explanation for anomlies in the USA.
    Great Lakes freeze this year unusually early, and frost will reach into northern Florida.
    This winter will be hard for the entire northern hemisphere, when the solar activity will fall even more.
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/winter-weather

  64. Hans Jelbring says:

    ren says:
    November 18, 2014 at 5:32 am

    Where can I find your forecast? I appreciate the information you are providing and am coming back to it.but at first I will telling you to be careful with statements that you considere true in a scientifice sense.

    Your statement “This winter will be hard for the entire northern hemisphere, when the solar activity will fall even more.” is false using Karl Popper method and can easily be falsified.

    1. You are already claiming that you made a correct forecast for the whole winter based on data from North America.
    2. The winter has hardly started
    3. North America (up to polar areas) is not the “entire hemisphere”.
    4. Observational evidence in northern Sweden in november is absolutely opposite to what it is i
    Canada plus northern US.

    This November was the warmest one on record and the highest temperature ever was recorded in a November Sweden (about +21 C). In Stockholm where I lived it was +19C. I have experienced when it was -20C in October in Stockholm. We haven´t had any snow yet and hardly any frost. There is a reason for the great difference between north European and north American climate conditions this late fall. The answer is found when investigating WHERE the cold air masses are produced, the so called Mobile Polar Highs (MPHs) and where they move.

  65. ren says:

    Here you can see why the America directly reaches air from the Arctic Sea. It is the result of blockade of the ozone in the stratosphere. Do you really not see it?
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-81.61,77.14,365

    I’m sure my prediction, because the distribution of ozone over the Arctic Circle does not change, and the extent of snow cover as of November is already huge in Asia and America.
    The decrease in solar activity will increase the pressure on the polar circle and meridional circulation over Europe.

  66. ren says:

    The current shape of the polar vortex at the height of 17 km of perfectly explains the temperature difference between America and Europe. Just look at the directions of air flow. The pressure at 500 is only reflection polar vortex. Of course we are talking about winter when the wind energy on the edge of the vortex correspondingly increases (due to increase in the temperature gradient).

  67. ren says:

    “The winter of 2014 – 2015 is off to an early start over the continental U.S., where snow covered 50% of the nation as of November 17, 2014. This is an unusually high percentage for mid-November; over the past ten years, the percentage of the continental U.S covered by snow on November 17 has ranged from 4% – 20%. Most of this year’s November snow cover is going to stick around this week, as a renewed Arctic blast will keep temperatures 10 – 30°F below average through Friday for most of the nation. Temperatures will not moderate to near average levels until next Sunday. Extremely cold air flowing over the waters of the Great Lakes will create an epic lake effect snow storm today through Wednesday, particularly in the lees of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, where the west-southwesterly winds of the storm will align with the long axis of these lakes, allowing the air to pick up large amounts of moisture from the unfrozen water. A Lake Effect Snow Warning is in effect for Buffalo, New York, where almost two feet of snow is expected to pile up by Wednesday afternoon. Southwest winds of 20 to 30 mph with gusts to 45 mph blowing off of Lake Erie are expected late Monday night through Tuesday night, and may create blizzard conditions with visibilities near zero. Blizzard conditions are uncommon in lake effect snow storms, and this week’s storm will likely be one of the worst lake effect snow storms for Buffalo in the past five years. Up to three feet of snow is expected in the lee of Lake Ontario near Watertown, New York. Lesser snow amounts are expected in the lees of the other Great Lakes, where the wind will not be blowing over such long stretches of open water. Up to 18” of snow is expected in the lee of Lake Michigan in northern Lower Michigan near Bellaire, and in the lee of Lake Superior near Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.”
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2861

  68. wayne says:

    Ren, with the jet stream now diving from Alaska down as far as south Texas you don’t think maybe that has a bit to do with this arctic front pouring the dense cold air over the plains?

    On you upper stratosphere ozone explanation, I’m not saying it meaningless, it may have something to do with the US chill but you never put up plots from the 1990’s or other warm years when it was warmer and no arctic fronts developed so others here can compare. If someone cannot compare, just looking at colored graphed has no meaning — every year may look like that. I thought there is always a polar vortex in the winter and sometimes it can escape southward, sometimes not depending on the jet stream patterns.

    So more comparison graphs from prior years with different results may give more meaning to what you are claiming.

  69. oldbrew says:

    It’s cold in the US greenhouse this November 😉

    ‘Tuesday morning, America ‘as a whole’ awoke to the coldest it has been in November since 1976 — 38 years ago. ‘

    ‘More than 85% of the surface area of the Lower-48 reached or fell below freezing Tuesday morning. All 50-states saw at or below freezing temperatures on Tuesday.’

    http://models.weatherbell.com/record.php

    h/t notrickszone.com

    Meanwhile Alaska is unusually mild.

    http://mashable.com/2014/11/11/extreme-cold-us-record-warms-artic/

  70. Derek Alker says: November 16, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    “The black body concept is of an imaginary black body surface, of no mass, in a vacuum. The imaginary, and therefore unphysical black body surface absorbs and emits all incident electromagnetic (EM) radiation perfectly (without loss). The BB surface temperature for the total absorbed EM radiation is described by the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) equation. This equation is only for a black body surface. The BB surface absorbs EM radiation, instantly reaching the temperature described by the S/B equation. It then instantly emits all the energy as thermal radiation, returning instantly to absolute zero, and therefore ceasing to exist… Sorry, couldn’t resist a little joke, but that is the concept..”

    Derek,
    Please, Where ever the this concept come from? Sounds like a James Hansen fantasy!

    “It is often the basis of many peoples arguments at present that a black body has mass, this is not the case, that is not the concept, and if that is the basis of an argument then the emperor indeed has no clothes on, because a black body surface has no mass. THAT is the concept.”

    From where is, “THAT is the concept.” Who has such a concept? A proper black body surface is defined as an isotherm thus has infinite thermal mass.

    “Ok, to take things a little further, Wien’s law is also, like the S/B equation, ONLY for a black body. So, peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount emitted are all black body assumptions, that ONLY apply to a black body.”

    Again please from where is this concept? Planck’s integral is an expression of maximum spectral radiance, and all are curves increasing with temperature monotonically at every frequency. This “radiance” is not emissive flux, it is the maximum potential for emission or absorption at each frequency.
    The surface absorbs when an opposing potential is greater. The radiant vector flux is exactly the difference in radiative potential at each frequency. The S-B equation is but a calculation of that vector flux between a flat surface isotherm opposed by a hemispherical surface at a different isotherm integrated over frequencies and over all directions. Always in the direction of lower potential. If no difference exists no radiative flux is generated as per Maxwell’s explicit equations. The adjective “black” is synonymous with maximum.

  71. Hans Jelbring says:

    ren says:
    November 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm
    Does not alike this dog’s head?

    Thanks for a number of interesting inages. What I miss is the reason why you show them and your text for sure does not help me. Please tell me if I have missunderstood your image in the text below.

    Anyway, I will interprete a part of what I see in the first image in you mail. It shows a brown circular area where it is written H and blue circular area where it is not written L. The center of the brown area has a temperature around -47C and the centre of the blue one has a temperatur around -73C. Both temperaturares are at the same pressure 70 hPa. The approximat altitude is not the same but it is enough to mention that the altitude is approximately 18000 m. This means that at both places the atmospheric mass ABOVE this pressure limit is the same. More specific the mass is around 710 kg/m^2. The total mass at sea level is around 10380 kg/m^2 at this latitude.

    Now, notice that the temperatur in the brown area is 26C warmer than at the blue area. It is not trivial to understand why. It gets even harder to grasp if you get the temperatures at surface which is not shown here. That temperature is COLDER at the brown surface area and warmer at the blue surface area. What happens in the two air columns can be described as:
    1. The surface pressure under the brown area is higher than the surface pressure under the blue area.
    2. The mass under the brown surface is larger than the mass under the blue area per m^2 since its surface pressure is larger.
    3. It follows from 1+2 that the the air under the brown area is colder than the air under the blue area. (in an average sense) despite the fact that the the upper brown surface is warmer than the blue surface area at 7000 Pascal.

    The physical processes producing this situation are mainly:
    A. In the high pressure area high altitude air is descending and are getting warmed adiabatically when descending until they reach a the temperature inversion at 1000-4000 m altitude.
    B. The surface air in the high pressure area is very dry and the sky is clear without clouds. IR can more easily escape upwards and into space. The surface air is cooled effectively. There are no wind or minor winds.
    C The air surface in the blue area is ascending. The temperature will stick closer to a dry (wet) adiabat which is -g/Cp in the upper layers. The condensation impact is quite small but some minor clouds and nano ice crystals will exist that partially diminish the IR into space.

    The final result is that sometimes very large cold air masses can form under the high pressure area. When large enough and when the moon and sun act it will start moving southwards. A Mobile Polar High has been born. Such a one can reach all the way to the equator. Professor Marcel Leroux has described their behavor in detail.

    Hope this has not been too complicated and that I haven´t mixed things up

  72. Hans Jelbring says:

    ren says:
    November 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    I am sticking to the first image. Notice that there is a second less brown area under which cold air is produced that feed cold air southwards into North America. When such a production place stay in the same position it will continue to feed cold air southwards. The cold air moving south in America has to be replaced. That air has been moving over Sweden for more than a month now and we have had the warmest November ever.

  73. Hans Jelbring says:

    ren says:
    November 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm
    “This is the effect of the distribution of ozone.”

    The image is great. what we see is a medium sized Mobile Polar High (MPH) which is mowing south- to eastwards. The cold air covers larger and larger areas and gets lower. The polar jet tries to “go around” (south of) it instead of passing over it. The latter would require more potential energy. When big MPHs and the jets collide storms (blizzards) develop on the eastern side. The most well known in US is the 1899 blizzard. Google it and you will understand what can happen.

    Is your statement above a joke? If not you are trying to spread superstition. For what reason?
    There is absolutely no physical bases for your statement IMHO.

  74. Hans Jelbring says:

    ren says:
    November 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
    “Here you can see why the America directly reaches air from the Arctic Sea. It is the result of blockade of the ozone in the stratosphere. Do you really not see it?”

    If you base a forecast on the spatial distribution of ozon it is fine but remember a correlation between A and B does not prove A is causing B or B is causing A. C o0r D can be causing both in complex systems.
    To me it seems that you have found out that descending air over polar high pressure areas accumulate ozon which might be a great discovery.

  75. Hans Jelbring says:

    oldbrew says:
    November 18, 2014 at 6:15 pm

    There are quasi-cycles that decide where the cold MPHs are produced. The production sites tend to be quasi permanent. Already during the early 20th century Swedish meteorologist could identify both a 8 and 9 year cycles during the winter months (where the swing between min and mx temperatures are largest). The cold air can move further south over land areas since they get warmed up faster over oceans. There is little doubt that there is a coupling between cold air production and celestial parameters.

  76. Hans Jelbring says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    November 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    Dr. Jelbring,
    Thank you for your continued interest in this thread. Please reconsider this position:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 17, 2014 at 6:38 am
    suricat says: November 17, 2014 at 1:32 am

    (My answers are in paranthesis)
    —————————————————————-
    It is nothing to do with lapse rate.
    (It has. When condensation occur it warms the sourrounding air and helps the air ti ascend. That´s why you have cumulus clouds. The never cover the whole sky since no clouds form where air is descending. The dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is equivalent with a CONSTANT TOTAL energy per mass unit (no wind and no condensation)

    The sensible heat delivered to the atmosphere via condensation is 75 Joules per second m^2 of surface area.
    (I don´t know if I need to answer this statement which obviously is false. During a clear day there is no condensation at all. It also seems that you cannot separate energy (Joule) and energy per secund (Watt). Consider moist air with 2% water vapour (by volume). 1 m^3 of air 1200 gram contains gram water vapour. Let all of it condens and calcualte how much it will warm the air. Some of the energy will be used to expand the gas. DeltaT = 2200x15x0.7/1200 = 19K. 50% of earth is coverd by clouds. let´s assume that theris rain in 5%. This would mean average temperature increase of 1 C due to condensation processe. This might be wrong. A better estimate is given by the average precipitation on earth which is well known. Any way Holton has calculated this very well in hius book “An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology”. The value a tried to calculate seems a little to high.

    How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence. (I have no idea from where you get these figures and what they relate to. What is radiated is power (Watt/m^2)

    The WV variability within the atmosphere is the “only” determinant of surface temperature. What is it that determines atmospheric water vapor? WV is the control and, the principal source of energy to be radiated to space?

    (Not at all, Earth and its atmosphere is in a steady state condition. Input power is approximately equal to output power. Most energy to space is radiated from clouds, earth´s, surface and particles within the atmosphere. A smalle part is radiated directly from the gases in the atmosphere and most of that radiation is from an altitude where there is relatively little water vapour)

    In terms of atmospheric energy equilibrium it accounts for 5.8 x 10^6 Joules (When I talk about energy within the atmosphere it is mass timmes average absolut temperature + potential energy whiuch far more than the value you show. How did you calculate it?) for each sq meter of surface area. Far far greater than the sensible heat and positional energy of this atmosphere. It is not energy storage, the radiative exitance is continuous and proportional to the generation of sensible heat. Latent energy is chemical and not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, (OK) until converted to sensible heat.

  77. Will Janoschka says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    “C The air surface in the blue area is ascending. The temperature will stick closer to a dry (wet) adiabat which is -g/Cp in the upper layers. The condensation impact is quite small but some minor clouds and nano ice crystals will exist that partially diminish the IR into space.”

    Why do you make such claims as ” The condensation impact is quite small but some minor clouds and nano ice crystals will exist that partially diminish the IR into space.”? The condensation impact
    Is huge and the only thing that keeps the ice, water, WV at temperatures above that that produce radiative equilibrium. This translates to the radiant H2O, in all phases increasing (adding to the lower exitance) into a solid angle of up to 5 steradians at altitudes above the tropopause. Just who said that translucent gas at temperatures above radiative equilibrium diminish EMR in any way?

  78. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: November 18, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    “Just who said that translucent gas at temperatures above radiative equilibrium diminish EMR in any way?”

    TBH, hands up guv’, it was me (I think). I did say that ‘some gasses’ hide their energy in a ‘converted form’. Will this get me ‘time off’? If it doesn’t, I don’t want this conversation entered as evidence.

    Yes! Some ‘gasses’ contain more ‘energy’ than the ‘thermometer’ can detect!

    I’m ‘exhausted’ with pushing that point here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  79. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: November 19, 2014 at 3:22 am

    Will Janoschka says: November 18, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    (“Just who said that translucent gas at temperatures above radiative equilibrium diminish EMR in any way?”)

    “TBH, hands up guv’, it was me (I think). I did say that ‘some gasses’ hide their energy in a ‘converted form’. Will this get me ‘time off’? If it doesn’t, I don’t want this conversation entered as evidence. Yes! Some ‘gasses’ contain more ‘energy’ than the ‘thermometer’ can detect!
    I’m ‘exhausted’ with pushing that point here.”

    Relax Ray.,
    This is only my old fart attempt to point out the FRAUD. Your comments are quite helpful.
    -will-

  80. Kristian says:

    About the troposphere/stratosphere distinction, how clear is this in the polar night, without ANY lifting air whatsoever? It appears to be quite indistinct, at least away from the ocean. We see this especially over the icy inner Antarctic Plateau.

    Take a look at this plot:

    “Fig. 1.—Temperature profiles (left plot) and water vapor density profiles (right plot) for the model atmospheres. The South Pole (solid line) and Dome Fuji (dotted line) profiles represent averages from radiosonde balloon launches. The Dome C (dashed line) and Dome A (dash-dotted line) profiles are interpolated/extrapolated from these (see text).”

    From the text:
    “Figure 1 shows the average temperature profile observed above the South Pole station from 3 months in winter of 1997 representing 58 balloon radiosondes. This profile is characteristic of the mid-winter South Pole atmosphere. The ground temperature is close to the average value of -61 C recorded by AWSs over this period. A negative temperature lapse rate extends above the surface to an altitude ~300 m above the ground, where the temperature is some 22 C warmer. The strong adiabatically stable surface inversion layer results from the long winter period of surface radiative cooling. This is followed by a wide isothermal layer that extends up to ~1–2 km where the free atmosphere begins. Above this surface boundary layer, the temperature falls off throughout the troposphere until the isothermal tropopause layer (~7 km above ground level). The temperature then continues to drop throughout the lower stratosphere.

    The average temperature profile from the Dome Fuji station over the same 3 month period in 1997 (representing 55 balloon launches from Hirasawa et al. 1999) is also shown in Figure 1. The ground-level temperature for this profile is set to the average ground-level temperature recorded by AWS over this period (-66 C), as there is some uncertainty in the lowest altitude balloon readings. Similar to the South Pole atmosphere, a strong surface inversion layer is observed. However, this is confined significantly closer (~100 m) to the ground. This reduction in inversion layer height has been predicted to occur at such sites (Dopita et al. 1996; Marks 2002) as a results of the local topography. A general characteristic of the nocturnal adiabatically stable inversion layer at any site is that the height scales with the magnitude of the ground-level winds, the magnitude of the geostrophic winds resulting from the Coriolis force at altitudes 1–2 km above the surface, and the relative direction of these two winds (Kaimal & Finnigan 1994). On the Antarctic Plateau two components contribute to ground-level winds: inversion winds due to local surface slopes, and katabatic winds originating from such inversion winds at higher sites.

    At the South Pole, these factors combine to generate an average wind speed of 6.3 m/s, which is predominantly directed from the high-plateau sites. On the domes, however, the local inversion winds should be much lower (because of the extreme ground-level flatness), and the katabatic winds should lose energy in proportion to the altitude of the dome with respect to the origin of the winds. Thus, very low wind speeds are recorded at Dome C (2.8 m/s average, 2.6 m/s 50% quartile over 8 yr) and Dome F (2.6 m/s average, 2.2 m/s 50% quartile recorded over 6 yr). The wind speed averages for Dome C are somewhat higher than reported by Valenziano & Dall’Oglio (1999), probably as a result of differences in binning (C. Meyer et al. 2004, in preparation). For Dome Fuji, 1 year of the 6 available shows unusually high average wind speeds; neglecting this anomalous year from the analysis gives 2.2 m/s average and 2.0 m/s 50% quartile wind speed, which is probably more representative of long-term trends. At Dome A, still lower wind speeds should be encountered. It is therefore expected that the boundary layer height will decrease with the altitude of the site, as confirmed by the Dome Fuji observations.

    The free atmospheric temperature profile from ~2 km above the Dome Fuji surface is similar to that observed above the South Pole, despite the large distance (~1400 km) between the two sites. Good agreement (within 2 degrees) is also observed with wintertime upper tropospheric temperature profiles recorded at the Vostok station (V. Lukin, 2003 Russian Antarctic Expedition, private communication). This uniformity of the upper Antarctic Plateau troposphere occurs because of the significant height of the plateau above sea level, the length of the Antarctic winter, and the persistence of the Antarctic polar vortex (a lowpressure system circumnavigating the continent), which acts to isolate the plateau troposphere from mixing with warmer air at higher latitudes.”

    Click to access pasp04_lawrence.pdf


    (pp. 483-4)

    The interesting aspect here is how that temperature profile is achieved. It is (most likely fully) achieved by the radiative cooling all the way from the surface (3-4 km) to 20 km, and the cooling stratospheric air thus descending all the way down the opposite way, to the top of the surface inversion layer.

    So, in a sense, what we have here is neither a functional troposphere nor lower stratosphere. And certainly no tropopause in the sense of being a barrier level across which the temperature gradient is inverted.

    The temperature (moving up from ~ 5 to 20 km) has an overall falloff rate of merely around 2 K/km (though 5-5.5 K/km between 5 and 10 km, so clearly still getting gentler upwards). In an (for all intents and purposes) waterless atmosphere like this, and in a normal convective situation, the DALR (~10 K/km) would be the target. So why such a gentle profile in the end? After all, there exists no surface heating, only cooling. So no convection to stir the air. For months. There is no atmospheric heating either until you get above (ultimately) 20 km up the column.

    Something akin to a tropopause can be discerned at about 10-12 km, but this is no longer a temperature (gradient) barrier between the troposphere and stratosphere. Cold descending stratospheric air from up high has no real problem flowing past this level and all the way down through the troposphere. The first (and only) real barrier is the surface inversion layer.

    So what happens when the descending stratospheric air reaches the surface region? It is forced out to the sides. Basically north. Towards the encircling band of travelling low-pressures keeping the cold polar air more or less trapped. (At the northern hemisphere pole the preferred direction would of course be … south.)

    So in the polar night, the circulation of the stratosphere and troposphere all of a sudden (?) becomes integrated inside the polar vortex, a purely radiatively driven regime, starting with the departure of the Sun and the ensuing progressive radiative cooling of surface and atmosphere, apparently bottoming out at around -85-90 degrees C in the height of Antarctic winter and at about 20 km of altitude.

  81. Will Janoschka says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 18, 2014 at 9:28 pm (My answers are in parenthesis)
    Will Janoschka says:November 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    [“It is nothing to do with lapse rate.”]

    (It has. When condensation occur it warms the surrounding air and helps the air to ascend. That´s why you have cumulus clouds. The never cover the whole sky since no clouds form where air is descending. The dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is equivalent with a CONSTANT TOTAL energy per mass unit (no wind and no condensation)

    You seem to say that sensible heat plus gravitational positional potential Is the energy of this atmosphere. From thermostatics, that is the adiabatic laps rate of this atmosphere with 0% WV.
    Even your dry lapse rate has a lesser negative slope. The latent heat of WV completely swamps that number. That “heat” has no mass. That heat can have no positional potential energy in this gravitational field.
    It is the same for atmospheric sensible heat. Although related to mass and temperature by specific heat, the heat energy has no mass and never a function of gravitational position. It is the condensation of of WV to invisible micro drizzle drops that keeps your saturated lapse rate to 5 degrees Celsius per kilometer.

    [“The sensible heat delivered to the atmosphere via condensation is 75 Joules per second m^2 of surface area.’]

    (I don´t know if I need to answer this statement which obviously is false. During a clear day there is no condensation at all. It also seems that you cannot separate energy (Joule) and energy per second (Watt). )

    The average annual precipitation about this planet is almost at one cubic meter per square meter
    multiply the grams in 1m^3 multiply by 2400 Joules/gm (latent) heat then divide by number of seconds per year and get average Joules/s X m^2, or if you like, Watts per square meter.
    Even the Trenberth cartoon, shows the same value.

    (Consider moist air with 2% water vapour (by volume). 1 m^3 of air 1200 gram contains gram water vapour. Let all of it condens and calcualte how much it will warm the air. Some of the energy will be used to expand the gas. DeltaT = 2200x15x0.7/1200 = 19K. 50% of earth is coverd by clouds. let´s assume that theris rain in 5%. This would mean average temperature increase of 1 C due to condensation processe. This might be wrong. A better estimate is given by the average precipitation on earth which is well known. Any way Holton has calculated this very well in his book “An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology”. The value a tried to calculate seems a little to high.)

    If you mean by warming transfer of latent heat to sensible heat, do it via heat energy not temperature. At any location the amount of WV condensing from saturation provides the all sensible heat required by any phase of H2O as that water radiates the maximum to space without its temperature lowing.-This can never be considered adiabatic.

    [“How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence.”]

    (I have no idea from where you get these figures and what they relate to. What is radiated is power (Watt/m^2)

    Answered above.

    [“The WV variability within the atmosphere is the “only” determinant of surface temperature. What is it that determines atmospheric water vapor? WV is the control and, the principal source of energy to be radiated to space?”]

    (Not at all, Earth and its atmosphere is in a steady state condition. Input power is approximately equal to output power. Most energy to space is radiated from clouds, earth´s, surface and particles within the atmosphere. A small part is radiated directly from the gases in the atmosphere and most of that radiation is from an altitude where there is relatively little water vapour)

    From where did you this mythology? Have you looked at the spectral emissivity of WV? Every atmospheric water molecule radiates the maximum it can to space, limited only by Maxwell’s equations.

    [“In terms of atmospheric energy equilibrium it accounts for 5.8 x 10^6 Joules for each sq meter of surface area. Far far greater than the sensible heat and positional energy of this atmosphere.”]

    (When I talk about energy within the atmosphere it is mass times average absolute temperature + potential energy which far more than the value you show. How did you calculate it?)

    Continuously there is a 24 mm column of water in the sky. It got to the sky only from the latent heat of evaporation. Multiply that 2.4 cm by 10000 sq cm/sq meter them multiply again by 2400 J/gm latent heat. This the Joules per square meter of surface area. Multiply that by the number of square meters of surface, and compare to your claimed total energy in the atmosphere.

    [“It is not energy storage, the radiative exitance is continuous and proportional to the generation of sensible heat. Latent energy is chemical and not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, until converted to sensible heat.”] (OK)

    You seem to wish to hide the effect of WV from all. Is this some decree from the Meteorological Gezelshaft? I admire your ability to explain complex meteorological concepts to others! Your understanding of complex EMR generation and transmission in a dispersive atmosphere seems lacking.

  82. linneamogren says:

    ” Even if there was a greenhouse effect it would mostly be due to water vapor, not CO2.”

    Have to agree with Oldbrew 100% here.

    Carl Sagan long ago concluded the high temps on the surface of Venus ( 465C ) pointed to a high vapor count in its atmosphere. He assumed an atmosphere even saturated with almost 99% C02 was not capable of such high temps alone, but must have contained a high vapor count. We now know the vapor count is only 0.002% of the atmosphere, yet we still see a deadly surface temperature that could melt lead.

    Yes, Carl Sagan was wrong from time to time. He also miscalculated the irradiance at the surface of Venus. He overestimated the SW flux coming into the lower Venusian atmosphere. But something important was revealed in Carl Sagan’s assumptions. That being C02 was not a real element for heating an atmosphere, or for a surface radiative thermal equilibrium running away.

    Water may or may have never been on Venus and it’s conjecture at best assuming if it did it gave Venus its high temperature today.

    We know the Venusian atmosphere has only 0.1-06 ppm of hydrogen and Mercury has 22% even it’s much close to the Sun. Most of Mercury’s hydrogen and deuterium in its atmosphere comes from the Sun ( 71% hydrogen ) which has an escape velocity of 1.3814×10^6mph infusing hydrogen into the atmosphere of Mercury. Being its only 35,980,000 miles from the Sun and Venus 67,240,000 miles we can also conclude what there is of hydrogen on Venus may also have come from the Sun.

    There is a deuterium imbalance in the Venusian atmosphere when it comes to H2 and D or 2H. Deuterium might point to water once being on Venus. Still every one in 10,000 H2 atoms have deuterium. On Earth there’s a balance of both elements but on Venus the D/H ratio is 100 times larger. This points to H2 escaping faster than 2H at a velocity of 10.4 km/sec into our Universe. That’s 2×10^24 H2 atoms blasting off every second.

    Two things really determine the high surface temperatures of Venus and Earth surface radiative thermal equilibrium. That being its location to the Sun and its atmospheric mass. There is no runaway GHE raging on Venus, the temps are no more and no less than the physics of those two points allows.

    We know the radiating temps of Venus are 1,176 times that of Earth. At any pressure range of our atmosphere the temp on the Venusian atmosphere should also be 1,176 times of the corresponding Earth’s atmosphere. 1.165+/-0.015=0.991×1.176 So both atmospheres are heated the same way which is direct IR solar radiation from above the planet not by surface emissions. The adiabatic lapse rate of both planets are similar at around 9K/km.

    Even the Venusian atmosphere is 92X as dense as ours, similar temps are found in both planets atmosphere going below 50 kilometers according to mass not the atmospheric composition.

  83. linneamogren says:

    I could also point out that the atmosphere of Venus has cooled its surface more than ever heated it. Its albedo of sulfate clouds have reflected energy from ever reaching the surface. Here again we see an atmosphere regulating itself. Imagine that folks at the UN.

    Solar winds leave the Sun at nearly a million miles per hour. These winds are stopped 44,000 miles from Earth, but on Venus there is no such protection. All the more its atmosphere is influenced by solar influx of H2 and 2H. The HFA acts like a massive vacuum sucking up parts of the Venusian atmosphere into space.

  84. Kristian says:

    linneamogren says, November 20, 2014 at 3:07 pm:

    “Two things really determine the high surface temperatures of Venus and Earth surface radiative thermal equilibrium. That being its location to the Sun and its atmospheric mass. There is no runaway GHE raging on Venus, the temps are no more and no less than the physics of those two points allows.”

    Right on!

    However, a couple of things. You say:

    “We know the radiating temps of Venus are 1,176 times that of Earth. At any pressure range of our atmosphere the temp on the Venusian atmosphere should also be 1,176 times of the corresponding Earth’s atmosphere. 1.165+/-0.015=0.991×1.176”

    The global Bond albedo (the albedo most crucial for the temperature/energy content of a celestial body) of Venus is 0.9. This means that the planet actually only absorbs around 10% of the incoming radiative heat from the Sun (Earth absorbs ~70%). Accordingly, its blackbody emission temp as seen from space is (even when being much closer to the Sun) waaay below Earth’s, in fact it’s as low as 184K. That’s colder than the mean global surface temp of the Moon.

    There is no linear relationship between the temperature at each level of atmosphere on Venus and on Earth.

    Also, you say:

    “Even the Venusian atmosphere is 92X as dense as ours, similar temps are found in both planets atmosphere going below 50 kilometers according to mass not the atmospheric composition.”

    First, did you mean “above 50 kilometers”?

    Well, no, like I said, there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels and insolation in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.

    The thing is, there is also no direct linear relationship between the air density at each atmospheric pressure level in the two atmospheres.

    The atmospheric surface pressure on Venus is 92 times that on Earth, but its atmospheric surface density is ‘only’ about 65 times Earth’s. Air density, after all, is a product of not only mass/gravity, but also of temperature/thermal pressure.

  85. Kristian says:

    Kristian says, November 20, 2014 at 4:38 pm:

    “Well, no, like I said, there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels and insolation in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.”

    Sorry, meant to say: “(…) there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels, insolation and temperature in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.”

  86. linneamogren says:

    Hi Kristen,

    That was my typo I meant to say “above.”

    The adiabatic lapse rate of Venus is similar to Earth at 9K/km. So at an altitude of 50km the temp is +15C. But similar temps and pressures found on Earth surface are also found on Venusian atmosphere at 50km and below that range temps increase due to pressure and adiabatic heating not C02 concentrations.

    As for the Venusian albedo, at least 65% of the Suns energy is reflected back into the universe. The top of the Venusian atmosphere receives 1.9times as much solar radiation as Earth, but the albedo is doubled. So, Venus receives a lower TSI than Earth.

    Temps on Earth warm over 80C going from 20 kPa to 100 kPa but on Venus the pressure is greater than 9,000 Kpa. With those massive pressures of course the surface temperatures would be deadly.

    Lets say for example we placed a 9,000 kPa on Earth. Temps on Earth warm over 80C going from 20 kPa to 100 kPa as stated above, so at 9,000 kPa Earth could also melt lead without any C02 concentrations.

    20C+ In(9000/(100-20)) *80C=400C

    Now if you move Earth to the location of the Venus that increases the surface temperature to 463C.
    Two degrees off. That’s about the same effect its believed C02 has on Earth. No more than a two degree change. But, that’s up for argument too.

  87. Brett Keane says:

    @Linnea Great to see the cogent arguments based on your studies. Most of us in the blogosphere who have a scientific education, have to struggle across from other disciplines. So, to see the latest, delivered with clarity, really should do us good. Brett

  88. suricat says:

    Hans Jelbring says: November 18, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    Sorry for the delay Hans.

    s: (It is nothing to do with lapse rate.)

    H: “It has.”

    s: Sorry, but again I say no. The “lapse rate” is merely an ‘observation of’, not a ‘process for’ the atmosphere.

    H: “When condensation occur it warms the sourrounding air and helps the air ti ascend.”

    s: Strongly disagree. When condensation occurs the light ‘convecting’ vapour is lost and replaced with much heavier water, some warming occurs, but not enough to maintain the same rate of convection.

    Also, a pressure reduction ensues leading to a mild/slow ‘implosion’ of the atmosphere determined by the rate of condensation. PV=nRT doesn’t ‘cover’ this.

    H: “That´s why you have cumulus clouds.”

    s: No, this leads to cloud stratification. Cumulus clouds have an excess of vapour in the ‘ascending column’ that’s prevented from ‘condensation’ by the insulation from its surrounding ‘cloud mass’. The ‘ascending column’ is always at the ‘central’ horizontal region and pushes through this to ‘cloud top’.

    Cumulus clouds ‘convect’ where the WV ‘can’t’ condense (central column) until it achieves ‘cloud top’ altitude. Here, condensation takes place and the gasses ‘stratify’, only to give way and ‘side step’ for other convecting gasses from below to punch through. The energy involved with this local event is enormous and can power hurricanes/typhoons at given latitudes.

    Rem: Can’t make full sense of the remainder of your post until:

    H: “A better estimate is given by the average precipitation on earth which is well known.”

    s: That’s a ‘best estimate’ for ‘surface’, NOT ‘atmospheric activity’. For an obvious example, virga is ignored when its ‘component’ is involved for ALL surface precipitation.

    Rem: I don’t want to ‘cherry pick’, but I’m into engineering physics and not into weather.

    H: ?”How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence.”? (Don’t know where this quote came from, but please close your parenthesise correctly)

    s: IMHO this seems to relate to the ‘ocean surface:land surface’ ratio. A SB calculation may only be considered as a ‘rough approximation’ for ‘land surface temperature’, whereas for ‘ocean surface temperature’ there are ‘hidden energy emissions’ that both defy the SB calculation ‘and’ thermometer temperature. Thus, 70% of surface emission (ocean surface) is incalculable by the SB method.

    However, please be assured that I, for one, fully realise that a power flux of 1w/m^2 applied for 10 seconds is equal to an energetic equivalent of 10 Joules. It doesn’t stop there though. If the power flux is reduced to a 1cm^2 area the ‘power density increases’! thus the ‘reactivity’ to this ‘flux density change’ by mass also alters.

    I ramble on the locally perturbed electric field. Please ignore this digression.

    s: The WV variability within the atmosphere is the “only” determinant of surface temperature. What is it that determines atmospheric water vapour? WV is the control and, the principal source of energy to be radiated to space?

    H: “(Not at all, Earth and its atmosphere is in a steady state condition. Input power is approximately equal to output power. Most energy to space is radiated from clouds, earth´s, surface and particles within the atmosphere. A smalle part is radiated directly from the gases in the atmosphere and most of that radiation is from an altitude where there is relatively little water vapour)”

    I think you’ve ‘lost the plot’ here Hans. Earth’s ‘systems’ are in constant ‘turmoil’. They’re constantly ‘re-configuring’ so as to be able to ’emit as much energy as possible’ (MEP [Maximum Entropy Production]). Energy always follows the path of least resistance!

    Take a ‘time out’ and try to understand ‘why’ near land surface ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) changes sooo much, whilst the ‘averaged’ ‘SH’ (Specific Humidity) is ~constant and the ‘absolute’ ‘SH’ changes so fast that it can’t be observed!

    ‘Steady state’ is ‘lost’ in the ‘HD’ (Hydrological Determinant) observation of the hydrological cycle.

    It’s impossible to talk of ‘TOA’ in terms of ‘surface’. Especially when ‘surface’ includes ‘ocean’. Moreover, TOA includes the ‘depths’ that provide the TOA ‘obs’ and surface also includes the ‘depths’ of ‘ocean’ that provide the surface ‘obs’.

    I give up, it’s late and I’m tired. Let’s take this up another time.

    Can we get back to ‘normal dialogue’???

    Best regards, Ray.

  89. linneamogren says:

    @Brett

    Thank you for the nice comment! Greetings from Sweden.

  90. Brett Keane says:

    @Linnea: You’re welcome, from NZ. To put money where mouth is, I have to experiment soon. Have your Professors shown any relevant experiments on the Gas Laws and/or “atmospheric greenhouse effects” yet? Brett

  91. Roger Clague says:

    linneamogren says:
    November 21, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    The adiabatic lapse rate of Venus is similar to Earth at 9K/km

    Lapse rate (LR ) = gravity/specific heat of atmos
    = g/c

    Venus
    g = 9, c ( CO2, active gas ) = 1

    LR = 9/1
    = 9

    measured LR = 9

    Earth
    g = 10, c ( N2/ O2 ) = 1

    LR = 10/1
    = 10

    measured LR = 5 to 6

    The calculated LR for Earth is wrong.
    The IR active ( “greenhouse” ) gas is H2O(g) not N2/O2
    c ( H2O(g) ) = 2
    This gives the correct answer for LR Earth

    To say adiabatic LR is to assume ( incorrectly IMHO ) the cause of LR.
    The atmos is diabatic not adiabatic.

  92. Will Janoschka says:

    suricat says: November 22, 2014 at 3:19 am
    Hans Jelbring says: November 18, 2014 at 9:28 pm
    “Rem: Can’t make full sense of the remainder of your post until:”:

    ((“H: ?”How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence.”?))
    ” (Don’t know where this quote came from, but please close your parenthesis correctly)”

    Ray this is from a previous post:

    Will Janoschka says: November 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm
    “It is nothing to do with lapse rate. The sensible heat delivered to the atmosphere via condensation is 75 Joules per second/m^2 of surface area. How can something that delivers 30% of the energy to be radiated to space via EMR be considered a minor influence? The WV variability within the atmosphere is the “only” determinant of surface temperature. What is it that determines atmospheric water vapor? WV is the control and, the principal source of energy to be radiated to space?
    In terms of atmospheric energy equilibrium it accounts for 5.8 x 10^6 Joules for each sq meter of surface area. Far far greater than the sensible heat and positional energy of this atmosphere. It is not energy storage, the radiative exitance is continuous and proportional to the generation of sensible heat. Latent energy is chemical and not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, until converted to sensible heat.”

    “s: IMHO this seems to relate to the ‘ocean surface:land surface’ ratio. A SB calculation may only be considered as a ‘rough approximation’ for ‘land surface temperature’, whereas for ‘ocean surface temperature’ there are ‘hidden energy emissions’ that both defy the SB calculation ‘and’ thermometer temperature. Thus, 70% of surface emission (ocean surface) is incalculable by the SB method.'”
    The S-B equation can never be used between surfaces with an intervening dispersive media.
    The Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation, even for luminous gasses, failed miserably..
    When applied to a non luminous atmosphere, it is the height of idiocy.
    -will-

  93. Brett Keane says:

    @Roger Clague says:
    November 22, 2014 at 12:51 pm: You seem to be trying to sidestep the Gas Laws. Where can that get us? Brett

  94. linneamogren says:

    @Brett

    Yes my professors have done some interesting experiments and fortunate for me a few are open critics of the AGW hypothesis. Here in Sweden science is more open to debate
    than politics. My goal is to be an astronomer, but I’m fascinated by climatology.

  95. linneamogren says:

    @roger.

    I’m not sure how you can side step the adiabatic process of an atmosphere and paste it solely as diabatic. Air rises it cools when it sinks it warms both are an adiabatic process in the our atmosphere.

  96. linneamogren says:

    @Roger

    Temperature change of a parcel of air due to diabatic heating/cooling is INDEPENDENT from the temperature change caused by adiabatic heating or cooling. Temperature changes due to diabatic heating or cooling by themselves do not necessarily depend on if the parcel is rising or sinking in the adiabatic process.

  97. Konrad. says:

    Roger Clague says:
    November 22, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    “The atmos is diabatic not adiabatic.”

    True, but to assume the lapse rate is caused by radiative process, not vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the troposphere is a dead end.

    The chances of a LR comparable to that currently observed being produced by radiative processes rather than physical is not indistinguishable from zero.

  98. Brett Keane says:

    @Linnea: Glad to learn that some real atmospheric physics may be getting taught. Just not in climatology. It is where the answers lie, allied with the astro and quantum branches. Good luck. and please keep enlightening us. Brett

  99. Konrad. says: November 23, 2014 at 9:10 am

    “True, but to assume the lapse rate is caused by radiative process, not vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the troposphere is a dead end.”

    Both WV and EMR to space determine not only lapse rate, but also the actual temperature profile of the troposphere.

    “The chances of a LR comparable to that currently observed being produced by radiative processes rather than physical is not indistinguishable from zero.”

    What nonsense! Why the chances thing? Go measure, different at every location. some average lapse rate or temperature profile also has no meaning. Averaging temperatures in any way has zero meaning.

  100. oldbrew says:

    Kristian says: ‘there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels, insolation and temperature in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.’

    Are you sure? Somebody doesn’t agree.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

  101. Kristian says:

    oldbrew.

    Earth globally absorbs ~240 W/m^2 of the Sun’s radiative heat from the ToA down (and emits the same average flux back out); Venus, on the other hand, absorbs (and emits) ~66 W/m^2 only. This would translate (via the S-B equation) to an effective BB emission temp of Earth as seeen from space of 255K, while the equivalent temp for Venus would be a mere 184K:
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

    So the 1 bar atmospheric level on Venus should’ve been much colder than the equivalent level on Earth, not warmer, if this line of reasoning were to hold up against reality.

    Distance to the Sun doesn’t matter. Only the solar flux actually absorbed matters.

    Huffman’s attempt at justifying why we shouldn’t adjust for global albedo is … not particularly convincing.

    Also, once again, notice how the surface air PRESSURE on Venus is 92 times Earth’s, while its surface air DENSITY is ‘only’ 65 times that of Earth’s. Hence, there’s a different temperature/weight (mass*gravity) ratio on Venus than on Earth. Why, then, would there be a direct, linear relationship between pressure/temp levels on Venus and Earth?

  102. Bhort says:

    “Why, then, would there be a direct, linear relationship between pressure/temp levels on Venus and Earth?”

    Circles are perfect and God is perfect. Why would he use ellipses for the planetary orbits? It makes no sense.

    My point is that if Huffman is on to something, it shows that the current theory/narrative is so wrong that it is almost unsalvageable. Of course it could be a coincidence…

  103. oldbrew says:

    ‘Why, then, would there be a direct, linear relationship between pressure/temp levels on Venus and Earth?’

    That’s what the facts say, unless you don’t accept the data supplied are facts?

    I wouldn’t depend on the NASA factsheet there. Look at all the other planet fact sheets and then ask why the Venus one is totally out of step for that figure.

  104. linneamogren says:

    @Oldbrew

    Seems obvious why NASA fudged the data on Venus because the physics clearly points away from their AGW hypothesis. That’s an excellent article you posted and it backs up my earlier post regarding the Venusian atmosphere. Those figures are devastating.

  105. linneamogren says:

    @Brett

    Thank you so much for the inspiration and I look forward to your theories and education regarding these and other issues.

  106. oldbrew says: November 23, 2014 at 3:56 pm
    (Kristian says: ‘there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels, insolation and temperature in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.’)

    “Are you sure? Somebody doesn’t agree.”

    OB,
    Those higher Earth temperatures, 300-600 mb, are the effect of WV condensing, fires to polymers, then to drizzle drops.

  107. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: November 22, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Now I’m confused!!

    “Ray this is from a previous post:

    Will Janoschka says: November 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm”

    Well I certainly haven’t offered any figures, so I guess it’s an ‘agglomeration’ of posts.

    “The S-B equation can never be used between surfaces with an intervening dispersive media.
    The Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation, even for luminous gasses, failed miserably..
    When applied to a non luminous atmosphere, it is the height of idiocy.”

    I concur. However, Earth’s atmosphere ‘is luminous’ at WV’s wave lengths and mainly constitutes the TOA energy loss for OHC.

    Best regards, Ray.

  108. tchannon says:

    Fudge Venus?

    History.

    Up front, from Sagan 1960, “at the surface (P = 4 atm, T = 600K).”

    The Marov paper is linked and so is NASA/Sagan report
    A Christmas day post with a context, best just pick out what you need not get side tracked.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/palestine-sagan-and-atmospheric-physics/

  109. (“The S-B equation can never be used between surfaces with an intervening dispersive media.
    The Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation, even for luminous gasses, failed miserably..
    When applied to a non luminous atmosphere, it is the height of idiocy.”)

    “I concur. However, Earth’s atmosphere ‘is luminous’ at WV’s wave lengths and mainly constitutes the TOA energy loss for OHC.”

    Ray,
    Earth’s atmospheric temperature is way to cold to have any luminosity. It has radiance at some wavelengths. luminous gasses are considered to radiate in a continuous spectrum, (greybody)
    Each waveband and each direction must be evaluated on its own. Integration is fine. Averaging never is.
    -will-

  110. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, November 23, 2014 at 11:00 pm:

    “I wouldn’t depend on the NASA factsheet there. Look at all the other planet fact sheets and then ask why the Venus one is totally out of step for that figure.”

    Right. So what is the Bond albedo of Venus according to you, then …? And does your figure make Huffman’s theory correct?

    “That’s what the facts say, unless you don’t accept the data supplied are facts?”

    What ‘facts’? Huffman specifically does not include albedo in his comparison, oldbrew. You need to include albedo to figure out how much of the solar radiative heat is actually absorbed. His results make no sense. It’s nothing but wishful thinking. Huffman being a sceptic doesn’t necessarily make him right.

  111. oldbrew says:

    Kristian: ‘What facts?’

    The ones quoted in the link I posted. It’s not wishful thinking, you can find them here:

    http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/profile.html

    Here are the two graphs: temperature…

    and pressure…


    .

    Talking about albedos doesn’t change these graphs.

  112. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, November 24, 2014 at 9:24 am:

    “Talking about albedos doesn’t change these graphs.”

    No, but it changes the final computation, oldbrew. The result. The comparison between Venus and Earth. Rendering these ‘facts’ of yours pointless. Huffman’s grand ‘discovery’ is wishful thinking, no more, no less.

    Why shouldn’t we include albedo to find out the amount of solar radiative heat is ACTUALLY absorbed, oldbrew? Why and how is Huffman correct in his dismissal of albedo?

  113. Kristian says:

    Huffman only dismisses albedo because without it, his results look significant, they fit. Include albedo and it all comes apart. That’s why he try to pretend albedo doesn’t matter.

  114. Roger Clague says:

    Brett Keane says:
    November 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    You seem to be trying to sidestep the Gas Laws. Where can that get us? Brett

    I say the Gas Laws do not apply to a planetary atmos.

    The Gas Laws ( Boyles Law and Charles Law ) were discovered by experiments using gas in a container with solid walls.
    The Ideal Gas Law is derived by a theory in which molecules bounce off solid walls in all directions
    There are only one solid surface for the atmos. of Earth and Venus.

    Knowing this allows us to consider other ways of understanding a planet’s atmos.

    linneamogren says:
    November 23, 2014 at 2:05

    Temperature change of a parcel of air due to diabatic heating/cooling is INDEPENDENT from the temperature change caused by adiabatic heating or cooling. Temperature changes due to diabatic heating or cooling by themselves do not necessarily depend on if the parcel is rising or sinking in the adiabatic process.

    The adiabatic parcel of air concept is not credible as the basis for a physical model of an atmos.

    (1) There is rapid energy exchange in the Earth atmos. For example when a cloud covers the sun.

    (2) Gas Laws apply to gas in a container. A parcel of air has no walls.

    (3) An air parcel cannot be diabatic and adiabatic at the same time

    Konrad. says:
    November 23, 2014 at 9:10 am

    The chances of a LR comparable to that currently observed being produced by radiative processes rather than physical is not indistinguishable from zero.

    Radiative processes are as physical as convection is. I think you mean to say:
    LR is produced by mass movement not radiation movement.

    Energy changes in the atmos. are rapid.
    Radiation movement 10^8m/s^2
    Mass movement by convection 10^1m/s^2

    To me this suggests radiation mainly determines energy movement and LR in a planet atmos.

  115. oldbrew says:

    Kristian: ‘Huffman only dismisses albedo because without it, his results look significant, they fit. Include albedo and it all comes apart. That’s why he try to pretend albedo doesn’t matter.’

    They are not ‘results’ as such, they are the data in a graphic format. You are in effect saying the data that was collected by Magellan was somehow ‘wrong’.

    If you want to talk about albedo, go ahead – but it won’t change the data.
    Here’s the Huffmann graph combining the ones above:

    Your own fact sheet link gives the solar irradiance of Venus and Earth as 1.911:1
    The fourth root of 1.911 is 1.176~ as shown in the graph – the fall-off due to distance from the Sun and nothing else.

  116. oldbrew says:

    Latest from the Hockeyshtick:
    ‘Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases’

    ‘We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

    Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.’

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

  117. tchannon says:

    Isn’t albedo a fudge factor?

    There are multiple unknowns, albedo is thrown in to make the maths work but there is no definite value unless all the other variables are known, which they are not. I think albedo is a derived value.

    Is there an albedo instrument which measures the value directly which includes over the total bandwidth?

  118. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, November 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm:

    “They are not ‘results’ as such, they are the data in a graphic format. You are in effect saying the data that was collected by Magellan was somehow ‘wrong’.”

    No, I’m not. I’m not addressing these data at all. I’m addressing the fact that Huffman leaves out albedo from his Earth/Venus comparison.

    “Your own fact sheet link gives the solar irradiance of Venus and Earth as 1.911:1
    The fourth root of 1.911 is 1.176~ as shown in the graph – the fall-off due to distance from the Sun and nothing else.”

    Yes, oldbrew, I understand perfectly well what it is he is saying. I realise what the 1.176 ratio is. That doesn’t change the issue.

    This is how this exchange started, by you addressing me: “Kristian says: ‘there is no direct linear relationship between pressure levels, insolation and temperature in the atmospheres of the two neighboring planets.’

    Are you sure? Somebody doesn’t agree.”

    With ‘insolation’ I did not mean TSI at the respective planetary distance from the Sun. I meant the solar radiative heat ACTUALLY absorbed by the respective planetary system. Which is the ONLY interesting parameter. And this parameter HAS TO include the planetary albedo.

    So can you explain to me precisely why Huffman’s finding is significant? To me it says nothing. These IS no direct, linear relationship.

  119. Kristian says:

    tchannon says, November 24, 2014 at 1:47 pm:

    “Is there an albedo instrument which measures the value directly which includes over the total bandwidth?”

    You could check with the CERES crew. I guess the global albedo is derived from the average of the reflected ToA SW flux.

  120. Bhort says:

    Kristin writes: “So can you explain to me precisely why Huffman’s finding is significant?”

    My guess is that the earth and venus share some equilibrium state with regards to temp-pressure profile. For example, since Venus has a thicker atmosphere it also has higher albedo, or possibly vice versa. It is not that albedo is unimportant, just that the system has already accounted for it by altering some other parameter that favors increased temp at a given pressure (at least in the earth troposphere range).

  121. linneamogren says:

    “Distance to the Sun doesn’t matter. Only the solar flux actually absorbed matters.”

    Think Oldbrews article he posted sheds more light on that comment so to speak.

    “Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.”

    Seems the Sun and a planets atmosphere has everything to do with the surface radiative thermal equilibrium.

  122. oldbrew says:

    ‘There IS no direct, linear relationship.’

    The graph says there is, and it is drawn from actual data.

  123. wayne says:

    “Seems the Sun and a planets atmosphere has everything to do with the surface radiative hydrostatic thermal equilibrium.”

    Now I would agree with that with that little correction since you mentioned the ‘surface’.

    According to the Robinson-Catling paper the radiative thermal equilibrium is controlled more by what can, and is, absorbed in the upper atmosphere at and above cloud top levels and all of the data is pointing that direction. What happens from that point downward to the surface is strictly density sorting by the well established hydrostatic equilibrium equations on the average over any local diurnal, seasonal and latitudinal redistributions of energy.

  124. Kristian says:

    First off, the 339K 1 bar temperature used by Huffman appears to be from a single 67N profile. Other and later profiles have been made where the 1 bar temperature is measured as for instance 348K, i.e. Bullock & Grinspoon 2001. So what is the actual, globally averaged 1 bar temperature of Venus? No one really knows for sure. For Huffman’s hypothesis to be correct, though, it HAS TO be 339K exactly, otherwise the 1.176 relation doesn’t work. 348/288 = 1.208, or 9 degrees off!

    Secondly, what Huffman is saying exactly is this:

    “Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.”

    Yes, Venus receives more, but also reflects much more directly back out, so ABSORBS less than Earth.

    This simple fact alone destroys Huffman’s argument.

    “Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth.”

    What Huffman seems to be suggesting here is that Earth, receiving 1370 W/m^2 from the Sun. has a radiating temperature in space of 394K (121C), rather than one at 255K (-18C). Or, even if he divides by four to get the evened-out flux, a radiating temp of 279K (6C).

    Totally ignoring albedo …

    Always be sceptic, people. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it?

  125. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    November 23, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    Earth globally absorbs ~240 W/m^2 of the Sun’s radiative heat from the ToA down (and emits the same average flux back out); Venus, on the other hand, absorbs (and emits) ~66 W/m^2 only. This would translate (via the S-B equation) to an effective BB emission temp of Earth as seeen from space of 255K, while the equivalent temp for Venus would be a mere 184K:

    The emission temp of a planet is lowest temp in its atmos. This is tropopause temp.
    Venus tropopause 260K
    Earth tropopause 220K
    Earth is not a BB. It is not emiting from one surface with one temp. The emission is from many surfaces at many different temp.

    Venus higher as it nearer to the sun.

    Distance to the Sun doesn’t matter. Only the solar flux actually absorbed matters.

    Huffman’s attempt at justifying why we shouldn’t adjust for global albedo is … not particularly convincing.

    My calculation of emission temps of Earth and Venus says distance matters and flux absorbed doesn’t. Thus abedo doesn’t matter.

    Also, once again, notice how the surface air PRESSURE on Venus is 92 times Earth’s, while its surface air DENSITY is ‘only’ 65 times that of Earth’s. Hence, there’s a different temperature/weight (mass*gravity) ratio on Venus than on Earth. Why, then, would there be a direct, linear relationship between pressure/temp levels on Venus and Earth?

    I agree temp of atmos not caused pressure.

  126. oldbrew says:

    ‘This simple fact alone destroys Huffman’s argument.’

    There is no argument being offered in the graphic, it’s just a representation of the data.

    Either Kristian is saying he can get a better correlation by factoring in albedo, which seems impossible as the two lines are matching already, or he doesn’t accept the data.

    He seems now to have opted not to accept the data. We should instead believe Venus absorbs less ‘heat’ than Earth but is vastly hotter. Good luck if you believe that.

  127. Brett Keane says:

    Getting a bit old hat to us sceptics now, but any idea that the gas laws rely on containers is way off beam. Study the mylar balloon experiment (Berthold-Klein), that would help. As for albedo, the data for Venus and elsewhere show that longer wavelengths are what do the job, along with PVT. All else is obfuscation. What I do find fascinating is how all the data leads to tentative conclusions that we may have underestimated the energy delivered by IR. I notice that there have been uncertainties with estimates eg.. 20-25%. Sorting that out, one would think, should be more important than jumping to conclusions of carbon doom. Brett

  128. Kristian says: November 24, 2014 at 9:44 am

    ‘Huffman only dismisses albedo because without it, his results look significant, they fit. Include albedo and it all comes apart. That’s why he try to pretend albedo doesn’t matter.”

    Indeed he did! Please demonstrate in any way, that some disturbance in input output parameters, will influence a gravitationally determined lapse rate, not abs temperature, in any possible way?

  129. linneamogren says:

    @Roger

    “An air parcel cannot be diabatic and adiabatic at the same time”

    Adiabatic and diabatic temperature changes occur at the same time (First example: evaporational cooling of air in the mid-levels of the atmosphere causes it to become more dense and fall to the earth’s surface; The air cools diabatically through evaporational cooling then warms adiabatically as it sinks to the surface; a parcel of air could be experiencing evaporational cooling at the same time it is sinking and warming adiabatically, the cooling and warming at the same time will try to offset each other).

  130. linneamogren says:

    @Brett

    You’re right there is no need for C02 doom and especially using Venus as an example of a runaway GHE is specious at best. If one removed C02 from the Venusian atmosphere you still equal the same surface equilibrium due to its massive atmospheric mass.

  131. wayne says:

    linneamogren, you are one sharp student.

    “You’re right there is no need for C02 doom and especially using Venus as an example of a runaway GHE is specious at best. If one removed C02 from the Venusian atmosphere you still equal the same surface equilibrium due to its massive atmospheric mass.”

    Exactly, especially if you replace, molecule to molecule, the co2 with argon which has close to the same molecular weight. One of the parameters that is going to affect the surface temperature is the mean molecular mass along with the shear mass. Another would be Venus’s mass itself that would likewise change the gravitational acceleration and that would also affect the hydrostatic equilibrium but that can be ruled out and is not going to occur bar some massive collision.

    “Adiabatic and diabatic temperature changes occur at the same time (First example: evaporational cooling of air in the mid-levels of the atmosphere causes it to become more dense and fall to the earth’s surface; The air cools diabatically through evaporational cooling then warms adiabatically as it sinks to the surface; a parcel of air could be experiencing evaporational cooling at the same time it is sinking and warming adiabatically, the cooling and warming at the same time will try to offset each other).”

    Exactly correct again. It has been hard getting everyone here to realize that there are two processes superimposed upon each other and you explained it very well.

  132. Brett Keane says:

    Would it be true that: gravity is a pseudo-force?
    Force or pseudo-force, makes no practical difference to the gas laws?
    Without solar input and internal fission heat, the outer gas giants would freeze?
    The solar input and gravity are enough to prevent freezing? Brett

  133. suricat says:

    wayne says: November 25, 2014 at 2:10 am

    Whilst I concur that “It has been hard getting everyone here to realize that there are two processes superimposed upon each other”.

    It wasn’t explained “very well”. IOW, the dialogue was obtuse.

    Bast regards, Ray.

  134. oldbrew says:

    Roger Clague says: ‘The emission temp of a planet is lowest temp in its atmos. This is tropopause temp.
    Venus tropopause 260K
    Earth tropopause 220K’

    220 x 1.176 = 258.72

    No need for albedo to get that result.
    Nobody questions the 1.176 figure for relative solar input at Venus (versus Earth).

  135. Roger Clague says:

    linneamogren says:
    November 25, 2014 at 1:02 am
    Adiabatic and diabatic temperature changes occur at the same time
    You have not answered my objection
    An air parcel is a concept in a theory that claims to explain the temperature gradient in the Earth’s atmos. This temp gradient varies from 5-6K/km over the whole surface and all altitudes up to 16km.
    You describe a special situation.
    (First example: evaporational cooling of air in the mid-levels of the atmosphere causes it to become more dense and fall to the earth’s surface; The air cools diabatically through evaporational cooling then warms adiabatically as it sinks to the surface; a parcel of air could be experiencing evaporational cooling at the same time it is sinking and warming adiabatically, the cooling and warming at the same time will try to offset each other).
    I agree with suricat, this obtuse.
    What is evaporational cooling of air in the mid-levels of the atmosphere?
    According to the adiabatic LR theory, the cooling in the atmos is caused by adiabatic cooling. Which i say does not exist
    cooling then warms is not the same as at the same time.

  136. Kristian says:

    Again, oldbrew, you seem to just pick arbitrary numbers to fit with your 1.176 idea. Venus’ tropopause temp isn’t 260K, it is rather 220-230K globally. Look at the Magellan plot from 67N. Earth mean global tropopause is about 210K. 220K is for the standard atmosphere at relatively high latitude.

    210K x 1.176 = 247K

    There is no fit.

    “Nobody questions the 1.176 figure for relative solar input at Venus (versus Earth).”

    Really? Pretty much EVERYONE questions the approach of not including albedo to find the ACTUAL solar radiative heat absorbed by each planetary system in order to make a good comparison between them.

  137. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, November 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm:

    “There is no argument being offered in the graphic, it’s just a representation of the data.”

    No, but Huffman MAKES A VERY DEFINITE ARGUMENT based on these particular data. One more time: I am not criticising the data, I am criticising Huffman’s argument.

    “Either Kristian is saying he can get a better correlation by factoring in albedo, which seems impossible as the two lines are matching already, or he doesn’t accept the data.”

    I’m saying there is no direct, linear correlation. That’s how this line of discussion started, remember?

    “He seems now to have opted not to accept the data.”

    I haven’t addressed the data at all.

    “We should instead believe Venus absorbs less ‘heat’ than Earth but is vastly hotter. Good luck if you believe that.”

    Yes, that’s what a heavy atmosphere does. Venus absorbs less solar radiative heat per unit of time than Earth, but is still much, much hotter. This comes solely as a result of its incredibly massive atmosphere.

  138. linneamogren says:

    @Roger

    My example is scientifically sound. If you feel it’s “obtuse” then I suggest further study on your part.

  139. linneamogren says:

    Let me try this another way in hopes of making it more clear as to why an adiabatic and diabatic process occur simultaneously.

    Condensational warming is a diabatic process, but due to its extreme importance to convection and thermodynamic instability it has been given the name of the moist adiabatic lapse rate. Notice that the terminology calls heating due to condensation adiabatic!

    Actually, there are two separate phenomena occurring at the same time. One phenomenon is the parcel of air cooling at the DALR. The second phenomenon is the parcel warming through latent heat release of condensation. These two processes partially offset each other. Since the DALR is greater than the rate of warming due to latent heat release, the saturated parcel still cools as it rises. However, it cools at a lesser rate than it would if it were unsaturated. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is a combination of adiabatic cooling and diabatic heating due to condensation.

  140. Brett Keane says: November 25, 2014 at 3:44 am

    “Would it be true that: gravity is a pseudo-force?
    Force or pseudo-force, makes no practical difference to the gas laws?
    Without solar input and internal fission heat, the outer gas giants would freeze?
    The solar input and gravity are enough to prevent freezing? Brett”

    The gravitational compressive force on atmospheric H2 of the giants and the Sun, forces
    spontaneous nuclear fusion,with production of He..

  141. Brett Keane says:

    @Will: Thanks, I was wondering, from the Neptune energy balance. But I did not get as far as considering fusion…. Must look further at pressures and core makeups. Brett

  142. cdquarles says:

    @Derek,

    There is something else not considered by the radiative only theory and that is chemical reactions. No photochemistry at all, including no photosynthesis. No endothermic or exothermic solvation, buffering, no combustion, no chemistry at all.

    I’d like to ask a question, somewhat rhetorically, and that is this: “What happens to a ceteris paribus argument when/where/if that condition does not hold?”

  143. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: November 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    To be fair, Roger was in concurrence with my ‘misgivings’ there. The “obtuse” ‘factor’ is ‘latency’.

    Its ‘energy’ that becomes ‘apparent’ when conditions are favourable, but leaves no trace until those ‘favourable conditions’ occur.

    Best regards, Ray.

  144. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: November 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    “Condensational warming is a diabatic process”

    No it isn’t. Its a diathermic process! The ‘warming’ is caused by an energy source that transcends the two (dia) energy sources to arrive as an increase to temperature at the point of its focus.

    ‘Diathermy’ is probably best understood as the tec used to reduce bleeding from an excised wound during a surgical medical operation, but the practise is used throughout our everyday life. Magneto-thermionic heating is but one instance of the ‘resonant’ energy window between systems.

    Another ‘link’ exists.

    “Actually, there are two separate phenomena occurring at the same time.”

    Disagree. There are three.

    “However, it cools at a lesser rate than it would if it were unsaturated.”

    Why?

    “The moist adiabatic lapse rate is a combination of adiabatic cooling and diabatic heating due to condensation.”

    No! The “condensation” is something separate from “adiabatic” and “diabatic”.

    How can this be best shown? 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  145. linneamogren says:

    @suricat

    Wrong! According to NOAA condisation is a diabatic process as I clearly stated correctly above.

    ” Diabatic effects include diurnal heating/nocturnal cooling, condensation, evaporative cooling, and melting. ”

    “Condensation produces latent heat release, which produces warming that can counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift. Latent heat release is most noteworthy in convection.” NOAA

  146. linneamogren says:

    @Wayne

    Thank you for the kudos !! Its very hard to explain such a complex system where more than one process is occuring at the same time

  147. oldbrew says:

    Borrowed this from the intro to the later Hockeyshtick post, shows Earth and Venus parallel lines and a number of other bodies. It agrees with the graph posted earlier, which is based on data only without any added calculations.

  148. linneamogren says:

    @Oldbrew

    Clearly the graph shows Earth and the Venusian atmosphere are pararell without C02 levels or other calculations included. As I stated earlier two aspects detetime the Venusian temp that being atmospheric mass and its location to the sun. Since Venus is closer to the sun Venus receives more sunlight per unit area of the surface.

  149. linneamogren says:

    (1.000/0.723)2=1.9
    venus times more sunlight than does the Earth

  150. linneamogren says:

    TVenus = (1.9)1/4 TEarth = 1.17 TEarth

  151. linneamogren says: November 26, 2014 at 5:27 am

    “@suricat
    Wrong! According to NOAA condensation is a diabatic process as I clearly stated correctly above.”

    ” Diabatic effects include diurnal heating/nocturnal cooling, condensation, evaporative cooling, and melting. ”
    “Condensation produces latent heat release, which produces warming that can counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift. Latent heat release is most noteworthy in convection.”

    Linnea,
    Please be most careful of “words” and their meaning by an opposing POV. Ray is conditionally correct!
    “No it isn’t. Its a diathermic process! The ‘warming’ is caused by an energy source that transcends the two (dia) energy sources to arrive as an increase to temperature at the point of its focus.”

    How do you know the effects are limited to “two”? Perhaps you can add another, so we have four!
    A diabat must be entropic. Some conversions between phases can be isentropic (reversible)!

    Linnea,
    I also wish you you most success in your efforts to understand! Knowledge is way overrated!

  152. linneamogren says:

    @Will

    I came here to learn and exchange ideas as a first year astronomy student so I’m cool with disagreement, counter arguments and corrections.

    If condensation is not a diabatic process I’m not sure why NOAA and other government agencies in the sciences say that it is. I was not arguing it had only two processes, rather it’s diabatic. Since the diabatic heating term Q includes latent heating and cooling effects associated with condensation or evaporation, as well as radiation. If I am wrong that condensation is part of diabatic process I’m listening.

  153. oldbrew says:

    linnea: ‘Since Venus is closer to the sun Venus receives more sunlight per unit area of the surface.’

    Yes. My only comment there is that it receives the sunlight at the boundary of the atmosphere initially. What gets to the surface (directly or otherwise) is another discussion.

  154. linneamogren says: November 26, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    “@Will

    I came here to learn and exchange ideas as a first year astronomy student so I’m cool with disagreement, counter arguments and corrections.

    If condensation is not a diabatic process I’m not sure why NOAA and other government agencies in the sciences say that it is. I was not arguing it had only two processes, rather it’s diabatic. Since the diabatic heating term Q includes latent heating and cooling effects associated with condensation or evaporation, as well as radiation. If I am wrong that condensation is part of diabatic process I’m listening.”

    Hey Pretty lady,
    Lab condensation of WV is always diabatic and entropic. Within this atmosphere, with many energy transfer processes, many, aw shits, are rampant! This is not simple, nothing from the handbook, explains anything!

    Have you others, handsome, or pretty that try to understand? Ugly seems not to get help from those that admit stupidity.

    [Reply] This must be the worst chat up line I’ve ever seen. Forgive him Linnea, he’s a very bad man. 🙂

  155. Anything is possible says:

    “[Reply] This must be the worst chat up line I’ve ever seen.”

    =====================================

    Second worst. “You don’t sweat much for a fat lass” is still at No.1 (:

    [Safety advice] Don’t try this one at home folks.

  156. Will Janoschka says:
    November 26, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    linneamogren says: November 26, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    “@Will

    I came here to learn and exchange ideas as a first year astronomy student so I’m cool with disagreement, counter arguments and corrections.

    If condensation is not a diabatic process I’m not sure why NOAA and other government agencies in the sciences say that it is. I was not arguing it had only two processes, rather it’s diabatic. Since the diabatic heating term Q includes latent heating and cooling effects associated with condensation or evaporation, as well as radiation. If I am wrong that condensation is part of diabatic process I’m listening.”

    Hey Pretty lady,
    Lab condensation of WV is always diabatic and entropic. Within this atmosphere, with many energy transfer processes, many, aw shits, are rampant! This is not simple, nothing from the handbook, explains anything!

    Have you others, handsome, or pretty that try to understand? Ugly seems not to get help from those that admit stupidity.
    ————————————————————————

    [Reply] This must be the worst chat up line I’ve ever seen. Forgive him Linnea, he’s a very bad man. 🙂
    ————————————————————————-
    And who {Reply] gives any identity to your anonymous asshole!

  157. linneamogren says:

    @Will

    Actually I never get a speeding ticket.

    One blonde asks the other, “Which is closer, Stockholm or the Moon?
    the second answers: “Duh! The Moon! You can’t see Stockholm from here!

  158. linneamogren says:
    November 27, 2014 at 12:56 am

    @Will
    Actually I never get a speeding ticket.

    “One blonde asks the other, “Which is closer, Stockholm or the Moon?
    the second answers: “Duh! The Moon! You can’t see Stockholm from here!”

    That is it exactly. Thinking and trying to understand! Thank you!

  159. Brett Keane says:

    @oldbrew says:
    November 26, 2014 at 10:47 pm: we came to understand this, over a few years studying the solar system data on atmospheres ranging from sub-critical high pressure, to 0.1 bar ‘tropopausal’ (after which predominantly radiative): That the convective cycle seems to redristribute sensible heat energy from top to bottom. This seems to be regardless of where it enters ‘sub-tropopausally’. It is what the data tells us. Brett

  160. Kristian says:

    linneamogren says, November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm:

    “As I stated earlier two aspects detetime the Venusian temp that being atmospheric mass and its location to the sun.”

    No. Two factors determine a planet’s temp: 1) its atm mass, and 2) its solar input, the solar input being the amount of energy actually transferred to the planetary system as radiative heat per unit of time. This is the NET solar flux at the ToA, TSI (‘incoming solar flux’) minus reflected solar (‘outgoing SW flux’). On Earth this is ~239 W/m^2 (based on a global albedo of 0.3). On Venus it is ~165 W/m^2 (based on a global albedo of 0.75).

    Huffman talks about the radiating temperature of a planet. Well, for any planet, this is based on the balance between outgoing LW to space and ABSORBED incoming SW. You always include albedo. The 239 W/m^2 and the 255K figures for Earth are both arrived at only AFTER having accounted for albedo. Which should go without saying, since only energy actually absorbed by a system has the opportunity to do ANYTHING thermodynamically with that system.

    So just saying that Venus is closer to the Sun, THEREFORE it should be warmer, simply won’t do. You’re only halfway there.

  161. Brett Keane says:

    @Kristian says:
    November 27, 2014 at 5:45 am: You keep repeating your belief that albedo matters in atmospheres. There has been plenty of data go through this and other forums showing that is not the case. Have a look for yourself. Brett

    [Moderation note] Please support assertions by providing suitable links rather then telling others to ‘go look’. – Thanks – TB.

  162. Kristian says:

    Brett Keane says, November 27, 2014 at 7:35 am:

    “You keep repeating your belief that albedo matters in atmospheres. There has been plenty of data go through this and other forums showing that is not the case.”

    What kind of statement is this? My ‘belief’??? So solar input simply doesn’t matter when a planetary temperature is to be set?

    That’s what you’re saying here, Keane. Only some theoretical inversely squared TSI value at some specified distance from the Sun matters, not the ACTUAL flux ABSORBED by the planetary system in question?

    You know of course that incoming radiation that is REFLECTED back out does NOT at any point contribute to the energy content and hence temperature of a planet?

    So your contention is that for instance the mean steady state global surface temperature of Earth (and the tropospheric temperature profile climbing up from it to the tropopause (which on Earth is NOT at 0.1 bar, but at 0.2 bar!)) would be exactly the same as it is today even after having removed all clouds (providing us with a global albedo of 0.3 rather than one of 0.1). This difference doesn’t matter AT ALL.

    Ever heard of the psychological phenomenon called “confirmation bias”. You have an idea, you find some data to match and then you discard, deny or suppress all data that doesn’t, to make your idea – your ‘belief’ – fit.

    That’s not good science, Keane. ALBEDO IS ESSENTIAL when actual absorbed solar radiative heat is to be estimated. How you could possibly think otherwise is truly beyond me …

  163. oldbrew says:

    The albedo idea would make sense if it blocked the solar energy from entering the atmosphere of the planet, but it doesn’t. It can’t overthrow empirical evidence.

  164. Brett Keane says:

    @Kristian: I had no preconceived belief, so I looked hard and long. Try the same, or not. Not my problem Brett

  165. tallbloke says:

    Brett: Give us the benefit of your research effort and link examples showing that albedo ‘doesn’t matter’.

    I think you’re wrong. Why do you think albedo is included in energy budget calculations in all basic scientific texts?

  166. Brett Keane says:

    Word games are being played. I haven’t seen the original claim re albedo proven, still waiting. When time permits, I could provide references etc.. Just not this week. Until then, I stand by my mild statement of 4:26 am. Maybe proof of the albedo effect(s?) claimed will be presented in the meantime. Remember, we speak of the Solar System, and the contention is that Huffman and others are wrong. Brett

  167. Brett Keane says:

    For starters, I direct your attention to the “Hockey Schtick: Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases” post on this blog. Brett

  168. tallbloke says: November 27, 2014 at 11:08 am

    “Brett: Give us the benefit of your research effort and link examples showing that albedo ‘doesn’t matter’. I think you’re wrong. Why do you think albedo is included in energy budget calculations in all basic scientific texts?”

    Roger (chat up),
    Albedo is included in energy budget calculations, only by Climate Clowns to get you to believe the surface “should” be at a lower temperature! Else no “warming”! These Clowns cannot give a definition of albedo that astronomers would agree, and it is as astronomy word, that never means the percentage of primary’s radiant flux reflected,scattered!. Albedo never includes forward scattering. This forward scattering allows the moon to be observed at lunar eclipse. This Lunar observation, gives a good estimate of that forward scattering, but is never mentioned.
    Huffman’s adjustments to the numbers are no worse than that of the Clowns. The temperature and temperature gradients are thermodynamically self adjusting so that total energy accepted equals total energy dispatched. Earthlings will never learn how each planet does that. They try, but step on their tongues every time! Solar radiative flux 0.4 – 2.5 microns contributes, but may have little influence, as you are currently discovering.
    “Forgive him Linnea, he’s a very bad man.” Yes I am, if I am man, I have not checked recently! I expected a graceful “no thank you” from Linnea. Please stop stepping on my lines! 🙂

  169. Kristian says:

    Brett Keane says, November 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm:

    “For starters, I direct your attention to the “Hockey Schtick: Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases” post on this blog. Brett”

    Yes, based on an assumption that breaks down as soon as you move on to our two nearest planetary neighbors, Venus and Mars.

    Also, just to inform you, Brett Keane, the 33C GHE is found by subtracting a certain 255K from the mean global surface temp of 288K. It is specifically the 255K layer that is supposed to be at about the atmospheric centre of mass on Earth. Because this is Earths radiating temperature in space.

    So how is that 255K value derived? With ot without including global ALBEDO?

  170. oldbrew says:

    Surely theory has to explain empirical evidence, not the other way round?

  171. Kristian says: November 27, 2014 at 9:00 pm
    Brett Keane says, November 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm:

    (“For starters, I direct your attention to the “Hockey Schtick: Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases” post on this blog. Brett”)

    “Yes, based on an assumption that breaks down as soon as you move on to our two nearest planetary neighbors, Venus and Mars”

    Yes! Why not? The .composition of each planet and its atmosphere, are very, very different..
    Please demonstrate the validity of “radiative forcing”, an arrogant academic fantasy!

    “Also, just to inform you, Brett Keane, the 33C GHE is found by subtracting a certain 255K from the mean global surface temp of 288K. It is specifically the 255K layer that is supposed to be at about the atmospheric centre of mass on Earth. Because this is Earths radiating temperature in space”

    What total bull shit. That 255 Kelvin.is but a mathematical derivation of fantasy Solar flux fantasy, albedo fantasy, emissivity fantasy at both ends. That 255 Kelvin is but another fantasy by statistical mechanics. Last time car repair by a statistical mechanic, 2 of 4 wheels fall off on the way home!

  172. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: November 26, 2014 at 5:27 am

    So NOAA states that (from your quote):

    “” Diabatic effects include diurnal heating/nocturnal cooling, condensation, evaporative cooling, and melting. ””

    I don’t care what NOAA quotes, ‘diabatic’ involves the joint gas laws of Charles and Boyle. ‘PV = nR T’. There are ‘two’ (di) variables, ‘pressure’ and ‘volume’ that relate to the eventual absolute temperature. P = pressure within the gas mass, V = volume of the gas mass, nR = molecular gas mix, and T = absolute temperature of the gas mass.

    Where NOAA includes “condensation, evaporative cooling, and melting” they include something outside of a ‘diabat’. When you read ‘diabatic’, there are only two variables that ‘abate/abound’ the ‘system’.

    NOAA also states (from your quote):

    ““Condensation produces latent heat release, which produces warming that can counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift. Latent heat release is most noteworthy in convection.””

    I find this controversial and somewhat naive of NOAA. Let’s look at this quote more closely.
    “Condensation produces latent heat release, which produces warming that can counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift.”
    It says nothing of which form of energy is released on “condensation” and leaves it to the reader to decide if it’s ‘thermal’, or ‘radiant’ (it’s an EMR in the IR region above the local ‘Planck weighted average’). There’s also nothing to describe the degree of “warming” that “can counteract” (somewhat???) ‘” the effects of adiabatic cooling”‘??? In truth, the ‘radiance’ from condensation ‘disperses’ energy whilst generating a vacuum within the gas by virtue of the ‘nR’ phase change lowering pressure (thus temperature) and initiates ‘stratification’ of the atmospheric hydrological cycle! How can this “counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift.”??? BTW, any convective “lift” energy is provided by gravity anyhow.
    The last bit. “Latent heat release is most noteworthy in convection” doesn’t SAY what it does. It just claims its ‘noteworthiness’.
    Condensation of WV generates a ‘low’ pressure in the atmosphere and evaporation of water generates a ‘high’ pressure in the atmosphere. Precipitation evaporates as it falls extending the life of WV in the atmosphere, do you see where this is going?

    Will is correct. Latent energy is ‘isentropic’ because it belongs to a different attractor regimen. It neither gains or loses any energy until a ‘phase change of state’ for the medium. The process is ‘reversible’ and generates an enormous, but unpredictable, Cp for the accepted PV = nR T regimen.

    It’s easier to defend a ‘link’ than a ‘quote from it’, and please excuse any ‘hormonal exchange’ here (they’re/we’re not up to it 🙂 ).

    Best regards, Ray.

  173. suricat says:November 28, 2014 at 1:50 am

    “Condensation of WV generates a ‘low’ pressure in the atmosphere and evaporation of water generates a ‘high’ pressure in the atmosphere. Precipitation evaporates as it falls extending the life of WV in the atmosphere, do you see where this is going?”

    No, in this atmosphere, no need for distinction of diabatic and adiabatic. EMR dispatches to space all entropy (energy that can no longer provide fascinating weather), none is returned to the surface.

    “Will is correct. Latent energy is ‘isentropic’ because it belongs to a different attractor regimen.”

    I prefer a different gauge group, mechanical, chemical, electrical. Pro’lly means the same thing.

    “It neither gains or loses any energy until a ‘phase change of state’ for the medium. The process is ‘reversible’ and generates an enormous, but unpredictable, Cp for the accepted PV = nR T regimen.”

    That condensation provides all sensible heat to “power” EMR to space. Without it, atmospheric temperature would drop like a rock.

  174. linneamogren says:

    “Like the Earth, averaged over its whole surface the moon receives about 342 watts per square metre (W/m2) of solar energy. We’re the same average distance from the sun, after all. The Earth reflects 30% of that back into space (albedo of 0.30), leaving about 240 W/m2. The (albedo of 0.30), leaving about 240 W/m2. The moon, with a lower albedo, reflects less and absorbs more energy, about 304 W/m2 ”

    “And since the moon is in thermal equilibrium, it must radiate the same amount it receives from the sun, ~ 304 W/m2”

    Less albedo yet colder than it should be. Link above.

  175. linneamogren says:

    Princeton physics department take on albedo.

    “The equilibrium temperature of a planet is determined by the size, temperature, and distance to its parent star, but not on its own size.”

    http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~strauss/FRS113/writeup3/

  176. linneamogren says:

    @Will

    Sweden is known for our bikini team! Mostly we are graceful girls.

  177. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    November 27, 2014 at 9:38 am
    You know of course that incoming radiation that is REFLECTED back out does NOT at any point contribute to the energy content and hence temperature of a planet? and
    ALBEDO IS ESSENTIAL when actual absorbed solar radiative heat is to be estimated.
    There is no difference between absorbed and reflected light as far as energy conservation is concerned.
    The only difference is reflected light keeps the same frequency and absorbed light changes frequency.
    Light is reflected at all levels, by aerosols and the surface, and by clouds.

  178. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: November 28, 2014 at 3:28 am

    “No, in this atmosphere, no need for distinction of diabatic and adiabatic. EMR dispatches to space all entropy (energy that can no longer provide fascinating weather), none is returned to the surface.”

    That’s only an ‘observation’ from ‘the void’ Will. The upper tropo may be perceived as this, but escaping ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) ‘muddies’ EMR at most wave lengths below that to give us the weather we could normally expect as ‘climate’.

    Are you ‘pulling my leg’?

    “I prefer a different gauge group, mechanical, chemical, electrical. Pro’lly means the same thing.”

    It’s only a ‘label’, but ‘latent Cp’ is only released/confined at a ‘set point’ hysteresis for T and P. I say ‘latent Cp’ because some models try to emulate latent energy by using a ‘Cp’ work around, but it doesn’t work (all this can do is change the ‘medium’s’ Cp). ‘Cp’ doesn’t exist in the realm of ‘chemical change of state’, only the ‘W’, or ‘E’, of the mass quantum that undergoes the ‘change of state’ at the hysteresis point.

    I guess modeller’s need to hunt for the ‘hysteresis point’ in their models, but ‘resolution’ within the model is a ‘real’ problem (observation ‘in the wild’ is just as elusive). I guess we still have ‘first principles’ though.

    “That condensation provides all sensible heat to “power” EMR to space. Without it, atmospheric temperature would drop like a rock.”

    I concur Will, but that happens from outside of the ‘weather/climate’ altitudes. TBH OHC provides an ‘umbrella’ for any ‘SB’ calculation and that’s why the radiative calculations have become confusing.

    Best regards, Ray.

  179. suricat says:

    linneamogren says: November 28, 2014 at 5:34 am, November 28, 2014 at 5:50 am, November 28, 2014 at 5:54 am and November 28, 2014 at 6:00 am.

    AFAIK these postings bring nothing new to the argument Linnea. AFAIK the ‘greenhouse’ does exist, but relies on the survival altitude of H2O in a major role at an altitude where H2O, in a liquid state, exists and a minor role where H2O exists in a solid state.

    What can you ‘contribute’ (an invitation) as a ‘personal dialogue’ within this discussion? 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  180. linneamogren says:

    @ray

    I contributed life back into this discussion when I made the argument for the Venusian temp as to its equilibrium being that of atmospheric mass rather than C02 levels. There was a debate raging along side about albedo and the diabetic process. Those several postings were in regards to albedo which Roger tipped me off to his responce article.
    So, contribute I did with all respect. The NOAA article was requested so I posted.

  181. linneamogren says:

    Diabatic darn word correction

  182. suricat says: November 29, 2014 at 2:11 am
    Will Janoschka says: November 28, 2014 at 3:28 am
    (“No, in this atmosphere, no need for distinction of diabatic and adiabatic. EMR dispatches to space all entropy (energy that can no longer p my assrovide fascinating weather), none is returned to the surface.”)

    “That’s only an ‘observation’ from ‘the void’ Will.”

    Void my ass, It is direct observation everywhere. Thermal EMR dispatches only entropy, and needs no mass to carry such radiative power. If the energy were otherwise useful energy, it would doing such work.

    “The upper tropo may be perceived as this, but escaping ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) ‘muddies’ EMR at most wave lengths below that to give us the weather we could normally expect as ‘climate’.”

    How does your undefined OHC muddle anything at any wavelength?

    “Are you ‘pulling my leg’?”
    I do not know. You used the word “attractor”, that I refuse to accept for anything physical.

    “I prefer a different gauge group, mechanical, chemical, electrical. Pro’lly means the same thing.”

    “It’s only a ‘label’, but ‘latent Cp’ is only released/confined at a ‘set point’ hysteresis for T and P. I say ‘latent Cp’ because some models try to emulate latent energy by using a ‘Cp’ work around, but it doesn’t work (all this can do is change tand needshe ‘medium’s’ Cp). ‘Cp’ doesn’t exist in the realm of ‘chemical change of state’, only the ‘W’, or ‘E’, of the mass quantum that undergoes the ‘change of state’ at the hysteresis point.”

    I was not speaking of Cp or Cv or gamma. I was speaking of the measurable 2400 Joules/gm of sensible heat that must be generated and transferred from H2O before precipitation is possible.

    “I guess modeller’s need to hunt for the ‘hysteresis point’ in their models, but ‘resolution’ within the model is a ‘real’ problem (observation ‘in the wild’ is just as elusive). I guess we still have ‘first principles’ though.”

    Why do you find need of a hysteresis point. This is not cyclic except for viagra rain

    (“That condensation provides all sensible heat to “power” EMR to space. Without it, atmospheric temperature would drop like a rock.”)

    “I concur Will, but that happens from outside of the ‘weather/climate’ altitudes.”

    The demonstrable exit of EMR entropy to space accumulates from every altitude to 220 km.

    ” TBH OHC provides an ‘umbrella’ for any ‘SB’ calculation and that’s why the radiative calculations have become confusing.”

    Radiative calculations are confusing to meteorologists and other Climate Clowns because none has attempted to apply them correctly. The S-B equation is never applicable to any part of any planet with a dispersive atmosphere. No ‘umbrella’ is required from your undefined ‘TBH OHC’ . If this is ocean heat it is not atmospheric heat.

  183. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: November 28, 2014 at 1:50 am

    linneamogren says: November 26, 2014 at 5:27 am

    NOAA also states (from your quote):

    ““Condensation produces latent heat release, which produces warming that can counteract somewhat the effects of adiabatic cooling from lift. Latent heat release is most noteworthy in convection.””
    @linneamogren
    You’ll find much confusion on this blog about convection and the related DALR and SALR.
    To me it seems you have the concepts covered smack on.
    Don’t be put off by clueless punks like this Janoschka character.
    He’s only trying to disrupt meaningful discussion by insulting others.

  184. linneamogren says: November 28, 2014 at 6:05 am

    “@Will Sweden is known for our bikini team! Mostly we are graceful girls.”

    Indeed, For whom are you graceful in a bikini?
    Your current image is much better than the pouty one. Reminds me of a Kurd peshmerga or a raccoon, situational awareness is everything, else I die!

  185. linneamogren says:

    @Ben

    “You’ll find much confusion on this blog about convection and the related DALR and SALR.
    To me it seems you have the concepts covered smack on.
    Don’t be put off by clueless punks like this Janoschka character.
    He’s only trying to disrupt meaningful discussion by insulting others.”

    Thanks Ben! To be honest, I would be insulted if Will was actually intelligent and interesting, but as Bob Dylan once said ” when dealing with the sick you must first learn to forgive.”

  186. linneamogren says:

    @Kristian

    “As I stated earlier two aspects detetime the Venusian temp that being atmospheric mass and its location to the sun.”

    No. Two factors determine a planet’s temp: 1) its atm mass, and 2) its solar input, the solar input being the amount of energy actually transferred to the planetary system as radiative heat per unit of time.”

    Well, regarding mass you are correct. Saying positioning to the Sun is not a factor is incorrect.

    “Princeton physics department take on albedo.

    “The equilibrium temperature of a planet is determined by the size, temperature, and distance to its parent star, but not on its own size.”

    Princeton does not include albedo for an equilibrium of a planet.

  187. linneamogren says:

    Someone mentioned the Venusian night and the planets almost uniform temperature. Being a day on Venus lasts 243 days, this allows massive amounts of energy to accumulate and along with the thick Venusian atmosphere created by the long period of accumulating radiation distributes the buildup of energy efficiently from the day side to the night. Thus we see almost a uniform temperature.

  188. Kristian says:

    linneamogren says, November 30, 2014 at 3:02 am:

    “Princeton does not include albedo for an equilibrium of a planet.”

    Are you sure? This sounds like a veeeeery general statement coming from Princeton. I think you should definitely check the issue a bit more closely … I smell a “confirmation bias”.

  189. Tim Folkerts says:

    linneamogren says: “Princeton does not include albedo for an equilibrium of a planet.”

    The sentence you quote is on this page: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~strauss/FRS113/writeup3/
    The equations IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING the quoted sentence does indeed include albedo. All they are claiming is that the radius of a planet does not affect the temperature. They are nor claiming that no other factors affect a planet’s temperature.

  190. Ben Wouters says:

    linneamogren says: November 30, 2014 at 3:02 am

    ” Princeton does not include albedo for an equilibrium of a planet.”
    They do, it’s the A in their calculations
    They mention 40%, actually use 30%.

    More relevant is that the results of these calculations are useless.
    The calculation results in the Effective Temperature (Te) of a planet/moon.
    Interestingly the Te for our moon is ~270K vs the well known 255K for Earth.
    Actual measured temperature for the moon is ~197K.
    I wrote a simple explanation for this some time ago:
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/moons-hidden-message.html

    For Earth the oceans help in creating a more equal temperature distribution than on the moon.
    So the day/night difference is mostly gone for >70% of our surface. The difference between equator and poles remains however.

  191. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: November 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    “Void my ass, It is direct observation everywhere. Thermal EMR dispatches only entropy, and needs no mass to carry such radiative power. If the energy were otherwise useful energy, it would doing such work.”

    It’s debatable whether or not ‘aether’ contains/has any mass property, but this isn’t the issue. The ‘issue’ is that mass absorbs EMR in varying quanta.

    I concur that EMR is the residual energy between mass energy interaction, but this same EMR ‘residual’ is more likely to be absorbed by adjoining mass, where it exists. However, if ‘no suitable mass’ is adjoining, the EMR can’t be ‘absorbed’. Thus, the EMR becomes ‘free radiation’ that leaves Earth’s systems.

    This brings us to a statistical analysis. The greater the mass density, the greater the chance of an ‘absorption event’ for EMR. Thus, my use of ‘the void’ as an analogy for ‘freed energy’.

    “How does your undefined OHC muddle anything at any wavelength?”

    ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) is, for the most part, released as ‘SS’ (Sea Surface) evaporation and isn’t a SB product. The ‘energy’ is locked into a chemical ‘state’ until the local environment causes a change from its original chemical ‘state’. This ‘change’ usually happens at a great altitude within the tropo where less mass is available to absorb the EMR product from the chemical change. When the state ‘change’ is made at lower altitudes the greater mass population tends to ‘mop up’ the EMR release.

    “I do not know. You used the word “attractor”, that I refuse to accept for anything physical.”

    Google ‘attractor’:

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

    The first hit is Wiki, but you can follow you’re own destination.

    “I was not speaking of Cp or Cv or gamma. I was speaking of the measurable 2400 Joules/gm of sensible heat that must be generated and transferred from H2O before precipitation is possible. ”

    This is a ‘delusion’ Will. Vapour pressure and temperature are all that’s required to trigger a ‘phase change’. Whilst the ‘energy’ is undergoing increase/decrease for a ‘phase change’, temps and pressures are ~unaffected. They just seem to be ‘drawn out’.

    “Why do you find need of a hysteresis point. This is not cyclic except for viagra rain”

    “Viagra”??? Please take care when using this substance and read the included pamphlet ‘carefully’! I think you mean ‘virga rain’ Will. Some images:

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=virga+rain&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:IE-SearchBox&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LPl7VLjFNMz1aK3DgegG&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=583

    If that doesn’t work for you, Google ‘virga rain’ and look for ‘the images’.

    No Will. This is just an example of how ‘all rain’ evaporates as it falls. No wonder that Trenberth et al got latency wrong!

    The ‘hysteresis point’ is an indicator for ‘phase change’, either ‘up’ or ‘down’.

    “The demonstrable exit of EMR entropy to space accumulates from every altitude to 220 km.”

    That’s because the ‘mass absorbency varies’ (you already know this).

    “Radiative calculations are confusing to meteorologists and other Climate Clowns because none has attempted to apply them correctly. The S-B equation is never applicable to any part of any planet with a dispersive atmosphere. No ‘umbrella’ is required from your undefined ‘TBH OHC’ .”

    I concur, but then, why did you ask???

    ” If this is ocean heat it is not atmospheric heat.”

    Where have you been Will. The oceans lose heat by ‘evaporation’ which becomes part of the make up for the atmosphere.

    Best regards, Ray.

  192. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: December 1, 2014 at 5:41 am

    “‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) is, for the most part, released as ‘SS’ (Sea Surface) evaporation and isn’t a SB product. The ‘energy’ is locked into a chemical ‘state’ until the local environment causes a change from its original chemical ‘state’. This ‘change’ usually happens at a great altitude within the tropo where less mass is available to absorb the EMR product from the chemical change. ”

    Imo most wv is transported up by convection. As soon as convecting air condenses (clouds forming) the release of latent heat starts. Cloudbase for most convective clouds is a couple of hundred meters up to a kilometre or so.
    So to me the release of latent heat happens for the most part in the lower troposphere.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#mediaviewer/File:Emagram.GIF
    Following the moist adaibat that starts at 100 kPa and 15C, it more or less parallels the dry adiabat from ~40 kPa upwards. This indicates that almost all latent heat has been used already.
    Only with high start temperatures latent heat release continuous to high in the troposphere.
    That’s why convection is so strong in the tropics 😉

  193. Trick says:

    Ben 9:32am: “Actual measured temperature for the moon is ~197K.”

    That is a radiometer brightness temperature dependent on getting regolith emissivity/reflection/diffraction correct and there have been advances in regolith dielectric surface properties in specialist papers recently – after Diviner was designed. There is no thermometer field on moon like GHCN.

  194. suricat says: December 1, 2014 at 5:41 am
    Will Janoschka says: November 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    (“Void my ass, It is direct observation everywhere. Thermal EMR dispatches only entropy, and needs no mass to carry such radiative power. If the energy were otherwise useful energy, it would doing such work.”)

    “It’s debatable whether or not ‘aether’ contains/has any mass property, but this isn’t the issue. The ‘issue’ is that mass absorbs EMR in varying quanta.”

    Nonsense! Mass “only” absorbs thermal EMR flux when the temperature of that mass is below that of radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff’s Laws of Radiation. At all locations in this atmosphere the temperature is above that of radiative equilibrium, so in addition to transmitting all flux from below, it adds and accumulates exit flux by its own radiance.

    “I concur that EMR is the residual energy between mass energy interaction, but this same EMR ‘residual’ is more likely to be absorbed by adjoining mass, where it exists. However, if ‘no suitable mass’ is adjoining, the EMR can’t be ‘absorbed’. Thus, the EMR becomes ‘free radiation’ that leaves Earth’s systems.”

    More nonsense! EMR flux is in a different gauge group than mass. It has no mass, and once detached from mass is free to proceed at “c” along a single vector until absorbed or reflected by some mass. The apparent inertia of that ‘energy and velocity’ can be transferred to that mass in addition to the electromagnetic energy absorbed or reflected.

    “This brings us to a statistical analysis. The greater the mass density, the greater the chance of an ‘absorption event’ for EMR. Thus, my use of ‘the void’ as an analogy for ‘freed energy’.”

    Thermal EMR ‘flux’ is always spontaneous and deterministic. The generation and value of such flux is somewhat statistical but always in a direction of lower EM field strength.

    (“How does your undefined OHC muddle anything at any wavelength?”)

    “‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content) is, for the most part, released as ‘SS’ (Sea Surface) evaporation and isn’t a SB product. The ‘energy’ is locked into a chemical ‘state’ until the local environment causes a change from its original chemical ‘state’. This ‘change’ usually happens at a great altitude within the tropo where less mass is available to absorb the EMR product from the chemical change. When the state ‘change’ is made at lower altitudes the greater mass population tends to ‘mop up’ the EMR release.”

    Please demonstrate any evidence of your claimed EMR product from chemical condensation. The only product from latent heat is sensible heat, as is demonstrated by any mechanical de-humidifier.

    (“I do not know. You used the word “attractor”, that I refuse to accept for anything physical.”)

    ” Google ‘attractor’ The first hit is Wiki, but you can follow you’re own destination.”

    I refuse to accept the post modern word ‘attractor’ or the word ‘dynamical’ as any part of this gravitationally constrained physical. I do not need unicorn soupe du jour.

    (“I was not speaking of Cp or Cv or gamma. I was speaking of the measurable 2400 Joules/gm of sensible heat that must be generated and transferred from H2O before precipitation is possible.”)

    “This is a ‘delusion’ Will. Vapour pressure and temperature are all that’s required to trigger a ‘phase change’. Whilst the ‘energy’ is undergoing increase/decrease for a ‘phase change’, temps and pressures are ~unaffected. They just seem to be ‘drawn out’.”

    This is your ‘delusion’ Ray. Show any evidence of your claim! In the condensation process, local temperature in increased by the conversion to sensible heat. This sensible heat is defused or radiated to any lower temperature. This is combined with an effective decrease in volume of 4%. Over a wide enough area this decrease in volume can create a significant low pressure area.

    (“Why do you find need of a hysteresis point. This is not cyclic except for viagra rain”)

    “Viagra”??? Please take care when using this substance and read the included pamphlet ‘carefully’! I think you mean ‘virga rain’ Will. Some images:
    If that doesn’t work for you, Google ‘virga rain’ and look for ‘the images’.”

    You are correct Ray, Spell check did not like ‘virga’ or ‘vairga’, add rain and Google the phrase! New product Viagra Rain. Close enough for government work. I have the same problem with the Clausius ‘virial’. No one is yet selling Viarial, aka snake oil!

    “No Will. This is just an example of how ‘all rain’ evaporates as it falls. No wonder that Trenberth et al got latency wrong! The ‘hysteresis point’ is an indicator for ‘phase change’, either ‘up’ or ‘down’.”

    If it evaporates it is still just part of the atmosphere, If it is precipitation returning to the surface it returns “no” latent heat. This is the only part where Trenberth came close to correct. Please explain hysteresis point. I understand hysteresis in magnetic material with high epsilon and mu. They like to stay magnetized, which is a vector property. The result is entropic. In this atmosphere who cares about entropy? It is all dispatched to elsewhere/when via thermal EMR.

    (“The demonstrable exit of EMR entropy to space accumulates from every altitude to 220 km.”)

    ‘That’s because the ‘mass absorbency varies’ (you already know this).”

    Negative, it is because the atmosphere temperature, is above radiative equilibrium temperature, as explained above.

    (“Radiative calculations are confusing to meteorologists and other Climate Clowns because none has attempted to apply them correctly. The S-B equation is never applicable to any part of any planet with a dispersive atmosphere. No ‘umbrella’ is required from your undefined ‘TBH OHC’ .”)

    “I concur, but then, why did you ask???”

    I did not ask!

    (”If this is ocean heat it is not atmospheric heat.”)

    “Where have you been Will. The oceans lose heat by ‘evaporation’ which becomes part of the make up for the atmosphere.”

    OK, half the atmospheric latent heat come from the ocean surface your OHC. What is the other half from deciduous trees called? DTHC? OHC+DTHC+EMR, yield RAIN?
    -will- 🙂

  195. linneamogren says:

    @Tim

    “The sentence you quote is on this page: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~strauss/FRS113/writeup3/
    The equations IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING the quoted sentence does indeed include albedo. All they are claiming is that the radius of a planet does not affect the temperature. They are nor claiming that no other factors affect a planet’s temperature.”

    Yes I saw the calculation where A was included, being albedo can effect the temperature of a planet. No problem with that and I have no deep need to believe it does not. I noticed they seem not to claim albedo as a determining factor of the equilibrium temperature, unless when they state “temperature” albedo is included. Like earth, Venus has settled an equilibrium long ago with all determining factors as stated in the calculation. Only added energy such as C02 can’t increase its own equilibrium using its own radiation.

  196. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: December 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Whilst I fully concur Ben, I think that Will has a ‘block’ with latent activity.

    Can we help him? I don’t know, but the major activity is at, and below, the altitude that you mentioned (“a kilometre or so”). Above this altitude we only have the sparse ‘phase change’ from ice to WV.

    “That’s why convection is so strong in the tropics”

    Yes Ben. WV is lighter than the surrounding air mass and generates a stronger convection “in the tropics”. However, ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) is the main determinant that decrees the ‘rise’, or ‘fall’, of a ‘parcel of air’ within a local temperature zone.

    Best regards, Ray.

  197. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: December 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Whilst I fully concur Ben, I think that Will has a ‘block’ with latent activity.

    Can we help him? I don’t know, but the major activity is at, and below, the altitude that you mentioned (“a kilometre or so”). Above this altitude we only have the sparse ‘phase change’ from ice to WV.

    “That’s why convection is so strong in the tropics”

    Yes Ben. WV is lighter than the surrounding air mass and generates a stronger convection “in the tropics”. However, ‘RH’ (Relative Humidity) is the main determinant that decrees the ‘rise’, or ‘fall’, of a ‘parcel of air’ within a local temperature zone.

    (I don’t know why, but I’ve lost our previous discussions) 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  198. suricat says:

    Trick says: December 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    I concur Trick.

  199. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 1, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    There are so many issues involved here Will that I need to get back to you later.

    Best regards, Ray.

  200. suricat says: December 2, 2014 at 4:56 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 1, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    “There are so many issues involved here Will that I need to get back to you later.”

    Best regards, Ray.

    Thanks Ray,
    Please give your best guess! Is energy necessarily conserved in a gravitational field, especially with non gravitational thermal EMR?

  201. Tim Folkerts says:

    @ linneamogren,

    The webpage under discussion seems to be a set of notes written for a particular class, and hence is not “polished”. IN particular, when it says ” The equilibrium temperature of a planet is determined by …” it really means “is determined in part” or “depends on”. It could be worded more clearly, but I think the intent is clear. The size, temperature, and distance to the star definitely DO matter and the diameter of the planet definitely does NOT matter. There is no intention of saying that other factors (like albedo) specifically do or do not matter.

  202. Ben Wouters says:

    Trick says: December 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    ” Ben 9:32am: “Actual measured temperature for the moon is ~197K.”

    That is a radiometer brightness temperature dependent on getting regolith emissivity/reflection/diffraction correct and there have been advances in regolith dielectric surface properties in specialist papers recently – after Diviner was designed. There is no thermometer field on moon like GHCN.”

    Wouldn’t be much use having a network of Stevenson huts on the moon given its impressive atmosphere 😉
    I’ve seen mention of the Diviner data being calibrated against data from several Apollo missions.
    I don’t suppose you’re saying that with improved measuring methods the average lunar temperature would be much different from ~ 197k. Certainly not anywhere near the Te of ~ 270K.
    Given my simple calculation for a more realistic energy balance temp. (~161K for the moon), it is simple to explain why the moon is a bit WARMER than this temp.
    Giving a physical mechanism to explain why it is so much colder than the ~270K is another thing.

  203. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: December 2, 2014 at 4:40 am

    ” but the major activity is at, and below, the altitude that you mentioned (“a kilometre or so”). Above this altitude we only have the sparse ‘phase change’ from ice to WV.”
    Not sure what you mean with ” major activity”.
    Without visible water (fog, clouds, spray etc.) in the lower atmosphere all wv is part of the gas composition of the air, and the relative humidity (RH) is below 100%, so NO condensation occurring.
    see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_moisture
    Lets follow some rising air, assuming it reaches 100% RH when passing the 100 kPa level:

    First at 15C: it needs to rise to just above the 70 kPa level (~ 3km) to cool to 0C, all the time wv condensing into water droplets.
    Tropical air at 35C: only at ~ 30 kPa (~ 9,5 km) its temperature drops to 0C, again all the time wv condensing into droplets.

    ” WV is lighter than the surrounding air mass and generates a stronger convection “in the tropics”. ”
    Not sure how you want to separate wv from the surrounding air mass. It is part of the gas composition all the time.
    From the above link: Air doesn’t ‘hold’ water, rather the water vapour molecules ‘displace’ air molecules.

  204. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: December 2, 2014 at 5:15 am

    Sorry for the delayed response Will. I’ve had bronchitis and that hits me worse since I contracted Legionare’s Disease a couple of years ago in Edinbrough.

    The ‘best guess’? From ‘E=mc^2 we understand that the ‘speed of light’ only reaches this ‘maximum’ in a vacuum and has a mass:energy ratio. Thus, mass ‘slows’ the ‘speed of light’ where the two are presented, but the ‘mass:energy’ ratio is dependant on the validity of quantum mechanics.

    “Is energy necessarily conserved in a gravitational field, especially with non gravitational thermal EMR?”

    A “gravitational field” precludes the ‘in vacuo’ hypothisis, so, yes! A ‘gravitational field’ implies the proximity of ‘mass’, thus, I would conclude that an EMR propogation that passes through a gravitational field would be ‘slowed’ by the presence of ‘mass’ (a massive object).

    This is very ‘telling’ of the CMBR!!!

    I request a ‘time out’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  205. suricat says: December 4, 2014 at 2:39 am
    Will Janoschka says: December 2, 2014 at 5:15 am

    Sorry for the delayed response Will. I’ve had bronchitis and that hits me worse since I contracted Legionare’s Disease a couple of years ago in Edinbrough. I request a ‘time out’.
    Best regards, Ray.

    Certainly Ray, all you need. Please get well! To be continued perhaps on a new thread.

    “The ‘best guess’? From ‘E=mc^2 we understand that the ‘speed of light’ only reaches this ‘maximum’ in a vacuum and has a mass:energy ratio. Thus, mass ‘slows’ the ‘speed of light’ where the two are presented, but the ‘mass:energy’ ratio is dependant on the validity of quantum mechanics.”

    Externally through a hunk of Germanium, the velocity of 10 micron signal is reduced to 0.25c! No one knows if that “is” a decrease in internal velocity, or an increase in internal path length, both work optically. Fringes abound!

    (“Is energy necessarily conserved in a gravitational field, especially with non gravitational thermal EMR?””

    “A “gravitational field” precludes the ‘in vacuo’ hypothesis, so, yes! A ‘gravitational field’ implies the proximity of ‘mass’, thus, I would conclude that an EMR propagation that passes through a gravitational field would be ‘slowed’ by the presence of ‘mass’ (a massive object). This is very ‘telling’ of the CMBR!!”

    Attempts to measure “delta c” to/from the moon failed entirely, with two independent paths.
    In E. Noether IV 2 (1919), she algebraically demonstrated that energy need not be conserved in a gravitational field, but many energy forms are conserved. This allows me to throw all “entropy”, work or none, into the entropy bucket for disposal to space via thermal EMR. Perhaps CMBR is a diffuse reflection. WARNING, do not look in entropy bucket with remaining eye! Will eat your face off!

  206. Brett Keane says:

    @linneamogren says:
    December 4, 2014 at 1:42 am: the drawing together with altitude may have resemblance to the solar system data, though if it is modelling, is it accurate? Anyway, what is your take on it? I may have missed the point. Brett